Why do people play for second?

[Solarman9]

And the guy above asking why play, you play to win.

The thing about Arena (and any other competition involving multiple games) is you can play to win the individual game, or you can play to win the season. Often it's the same thing, but sometimes trying to win the season is opposed to trying to win the individual game. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbuD-6BbnQw&t=24s
(due to the rules of a futball tournament it became advantageous for a team to score on their own goal.)
Trying to win the current game and trying to win the season at the expense of the current game are both valid ways to play. You don't get to dictate what other player's prioritize in a game.

When I play the game in real life I don't play for second. Nobody plays for second.

Let's say in a hypothetical game you are in 3rd place and taking the final action of the game. 1st place is 100 points ahead of you, 2nd place is 3 points ahead of you, and you have a card that steals 2 points from a player of your choice. You're saying you would play it on the 1st place player for no relevant effect?

t literally happened where the guy probably would have won had he tried, but he didn't

So... they would have beaten you anyway? What are you complaining about then?

I don't understand how you think a meaningless ranking system that provides no tangible reward compares to an athletic sport that involves hundreds of millions of dollars. Things that are real. And ironically in your example I would always use that card on the player in the lead as I would if I were playing the game in real life. In real life where you are not anonymous and playing with friends, you would penalize a person in second instead of first just so you could be second and still look them in the face?

If you are not playing for first, why bother playing at all. In a game tonight I was in second and the leader was 14 points ahead of me and the third place was 6 points behind me. He blocked me on the board and I asked why he did not target first place, he said he could not catch him. The game ended 88-85-84. I congratulated him on second place and asked if he regretted not going for first. He did. But hey, he got second. Because second place is always great when the reward is literally nothing....well not nothing, imaginary points on a board. I know when we play games in the real world, we always brag about coming in second....oh wait, no we don't.

[Jellby]

Because second place is always great when the reward is literally nothing....well not nothing, imaginary points on a board.

And what is the reward for being first?

[Artemos]

IMO 3+ player is not a great competitive format. I enjoy playing it socially with friends of course but the drafting, the hate cards, the map blocking, the awards, etc. all leave a lot of room for kingmaking and other shenanigans that can be aggravating when playing "competitively". So I would recommend you just stick to 2p if stuff like getting sabo'd in a 5 player game bothers you; that's what I do!

The thing is that TM is most balanced at 4p.

[Artemos]

If you are not playing for first, why bother playing at all.

Continuing your reasoning, why bother to play if you clearly can evaluate that first place is out of reach? Yeah, sometimes this evaluation can be wrong, so this is a part of learning and developing skill in game.

[RoyalRook]

IMO 3+ player is not a great competitive format. I enjoy playing it socially with friends of course but the drafting, the hate cards, the map blocking, the awards, etc. all leave a lot of room for kingmaking and other shenanigans that can be aggravating when playing "competitively". So I would recommend you just stick to 2p if stuff like getting sabo'd in a 5 player game bothers you; that's what I do!

The thing is that TM is most balanced at 4p.

TM is most horrendous and unbalanced at 4p and most technical at 2p, yet 3p TM is still far far far superior than 4p with more control over tempo and draft(you will get a card back, while in 4p+ you are just blind). I love 2p, but there are beauties in 3p, before you all making certain comments on 3p. Do try it first while competing in the arena setting. I often find lots of fun playing 3p against lower ranked, simply because I can exploit the game in more ways with the weaker players when higher skilled players just simply wouldn't take me to these rare situations, while still have higher chance of losing comparing to 2p which often times it's just free, because coming in 2nd while highly ranked is very punishing. I have some pretty amazing games playing equally skilled opponents while finding ways to secure 2nd, it's definitely part of the game and more meaningful in the arena setting. It's a gift to have the chance to competing in 3p arena, this part of game has been lost for years, and finally BGA allow us players to experience it. You can't find it anywhere else, and you can always play "regular" in live game or so, but the 3p arena experience here is unique, I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to experience it. Come and play!

[Artemos]

TM is most horrendous and unbalanced at 4p and most technical at 2p

At 2p TM is almost dice throw game, who gets more card draw wins.
Economy of TM is designed with 10 rounds top in mind, 9 rounds with Prelude. After 10(9) rounds leading players have overproducing economy to play mindlessly all cards in hand so it's zero decision space and kingmaking by players who wanted to play longer or just couldn't end game earlier. Also at 4p there is a power to stop runaway leader (with lucky starting hand and first drafts) by all other players without hurting themselves. Also at 4p deck is played completely most of the time so you can make much more decision about expecting certain cards. And finally what can I say offhand, Awards and Milestones are much more interesting to think about in 4p. 3p milestones is just 5 points for every player most of the time, and choosing right award is much more interesting because of discrepancy of player standing in 4p.

I often find lots of fun playing 3p against lower ranked, simply because I can exploit the game in more ways with the weaker players when higher skilled players just simply wouldn't take me to these rare situations

Yeah, explot... so much fun and "balanced" competition. Also at 3p an influence of bad player (with bad draft decision or bad map placement) is much higher, so accidental kingmaking happens a lot of time when group is not equal.

For me 3p TM is playable (I play with friends on game nights) but I prefer 4p a lot and on BGA play exclusively at 4p. And yeah, 5p TM as 2p is randomfest.

[Cile]

In real life where you are not anonymous and playing with friends, you would penalize a person in second instead of first just so you could be second and still look them in the face?

Yes.

While I'm sure we agree you should be playing to win, the scale of what is "winning more" vs "winning less" varies from person to person. When playing to win should you try to:
A) Maximize your own score regardless of other players, and see who comes out ahead? (In this case gaining 1 point is more valuable than making all opponents lose 2)
B) Maximize your own score relative to the other players? (Losing 1 point is worth it if everyone else loses 2)
C) Maximize your own placement (1st, 2nd, 3rd...) relative to the other players? (Stealing 2 points from the player ahead of you is more valuable than gaining 3)

All of these are valid ways of "playing to win" and you don't get to dictate how other players play the game. I play with people on all three of these scales and I'm fine with all of them. Personally I'm a B with a little bit of C, and some people would find in mean to play in a way that hurts my own position as long as it hurts everyone else more. If a game breaks because someone is playing for 2nd thinking they can't catch 1st then the game is designed poorly.

But the issue here isn't that the game broke, it's that you played a game where you can interact with other players and are salty that someone chose to interact with you instead of someone else. Oh well. Maybe that was a mistake on their part, players are allowed to make mistakes. If you don't want people interacting with you maybe you should try a different game. You don't get to dictate how other people play the game. Saying people aren't allowed to play for 2nd (and end up coming in 3rd as a result) is as invalid as saying players aren't allowed to rush certain Terraforming tracks, or Milestones, or purchase Awards early, because you personally don't like it.

The fact remain that BGA does encourage Type C (playing for 2nd if you can't get first). You might not care about ELO or Arena rankings, I know I don't, but other people do and it is valid for them to play in such away that maximizes their rank.

[Solarman9]

Because second place is always great when the reward is literally nothing....well not nothing, imaginary points on a board.

And what is the reward for being first?

The goal of any game is to win. I don't understand how you make an equivalency.

[Solarman9]

If you are not playing for first, why bother playing at all.

Continuing your reasoning, why bother to play if you clearly can evaluate that first place is out of reach? Yeah, sometimes this evaluation can be wrong, so this is a part of learning and developing skill in game.

In games I am clearly losing or coming in last, I would continue to play out of sportsmanship. I continue to target the leader to make sure everyone has a fair chance. I don't see how some of you don't understand sportsmanship. I play board games 2-3 times a week and never would the people there play just for second. There are times when you play against someone or target them as revenge for them targeting you, but that's human nature.... but when I asked, no one in one of the groups said they would play for second.

[Solarman9]

But the issue here isn't that the game broke, it's that you played a game where you can interact with other players and are salty that someone chose to interact with you instead of someone else. Oh well. Maybe that was a mistake on their part, players are allowed to make mistakes. If you don't want people interacting with you maybe you should try a different game. You don't get to dictate how other people play the game. Saying people aren't allowed to play for 2nd (and end up coming in 3rd as a result) is as invalid as saying players aren't allowed to rush certain Terraforming tracks, or Milestones, or purchase Awards early, because you personally don't like it.

The fact remain that BGA does encourage Type C (playing for 2nd if you can't get first). You might not care about ELO or Arena rankings, I know I don't, but other people do and it is valid for them to play in such away that maximizes their rank.

I want to play the better people. I don't want to play easy people like Rook suggested, I want a challenge. That's why I play arena. I don't want people who openly admit they target you so they can get second. That's not sporting and I understand you will never see my point of view. It's fine that you are okay with people playing not to win, but I guess I am in the minority in that I will always play to win at all times. BGA does not "encourage" a type of play, it just supplies the means to play. It's the player that is satisfied with imaginary points being their obsession.

It's like the people who are really good, get high rank, then quit and play non arena because they want a digital badge reward that nobody looks at. I mean that gold star from the teacher really means so much......