Season 19 thoughts, 2p vs 3p Terraforming Mars

[RoyalRook]

2p vs 3p TM which one is the superior game? 2p is generally agreed to have the higher skill ceiling, judging by elos of 2p players vs 3p players. I thought that fact alone settles the debate. But skill ceiling is an arbitrary thing, we should also consider the fact when equally skilled and in a fair competitive environment, player one's chance of winning drops from 50% to 33.33%. Hence elo are super inflated for the 2p player pool.

After 3 season of 3p TM I find 3p matches requires far more discipline with faster tempo and larger resource pool with the addtional player, every decision you make, is amplified. That also restrict your creativity in 3p, which I found plenty in 2p matches with its slower tempo and draft choices, you get 2 cards back instead of 1 in 3p for each round of draft.

Finally, what is truly the mastery of the game? Ready player one going through a series of heads up matches and winning it all OR competing in a larger pool and becoming the sole survivor? In order to succeed in 3p, you must be a top 2p player, as 2p skill sets are needed to be your foundation. Yet, it's not true for 2p players, they do not need to understand 3p to find success. 2p players can skip over Nash Equilibrium, 3rd player manipulation, while seeing less cards and have more control over draft and board from the lower player count. In this light, arbitrarily speaking 3p matches are truly the ones that require far higher skill ceiling, while 2p matches are more straight forward and simplistic.

We are transitioning from 3p arena formats to 2p preludes(more than likely) in the coming Season 20 TM Arena. Which format do you consider the superior game for terraforming mars?

Season 19 -> 20 Pointers,

1) I don't understand why people pick UNMI, it's far far faaaaar weaker than its Corp Era cousin. It's essentially auto gg when match up against good players. There is really no place for UNMI for Prelude, and why even take the chance in the first place? I would rather take Vitor to terraform than UNMI honestly.

And I do, wanna see a gen 6 Vitor finish against UNMI and Hely? https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=610390507

2) Multiple prod and city preludes are inferior preludes. I spare you the math, just think twice before taking them.

3) If you are first seat just take the ocean prelude, it's +12 swing against the 2nd ocean and tempo on Planners. Take the two cards spots even as mining guild.

4) You don't fund thermolist b/c you have a large heat prod, you fund it to slow down the game. If you are behind gamble on the first award, it's 8 for 2 at the worst, I wouldn't mind paying 14 for 2 neither. Hardly anytime is a good time to fund the final award for 20, most time you pay 20 for 3 points in practice.

5) Don't pass earth cat, just don't do it, unless you are passing it to me.

[Glados93]

As a biased 3p player, I think TfM is best and most fun at 3 players. I enjoy navigating the chaos of 3 players, and the complexities this adds to drafting and tempo. In my opinion, 3p is also more skilful (when all three players are competent) but this may just be a different skillset than 2p. Despite this, I concede that 2p is the best competetive format, as it is easier to match similarly skilled players and to determine the best overall player from a player pool with a smaller sample of games played.

[VerwijfdManneke]

2p Equating to 3p skill (or even being needed/required) is just not true. Multiple of the top 10 players come from the Dutch 4p scene and don't, afaik, even play 2p.

[Rutabaga00]

Well, it just depends on what you consider best, i guess.
After this horribly neutral response, i am saddened to see, once again, a game shifting to 2-players whereas i am absolutely not sure its the most interesting way to play. I know that we all have different point of views, but it is following a pattern that is too common on the site.

For what its worth, on BGG, 3P is considered to be the best setup to use.
And like OP said, the complexity and unpredictability of the 3P game, by nature, makes them much different games than in 2P, and much less standardized.
Adapting yourself to new and different situations seems much more interesting (and difficult) to me than following an obvious path, because most of 2P games will likely be contests between an engine player and a terraforming player.
At 3, you have to read your game, you have to read the room, and the randomness induced by the 3rd player makes it a much more difficult game to master. I think its much more valuable to show intelligence and adaptability in such a scenario.
In 2-players, there is simply less parameters to master, the game is more simplistic, i fail to see how this could be a more interesting game.

The most competitive format ? I dont know, but then, please, define what is the competitivity of a setup ?



The way gurus are set up is unfortunately hugely biased towards 2-players as you need to play as much as possible to have a say about how arena is chosen.
But as 2-players games are shorter in most of games, TM included, 2-players gamers have a higher playing count, they will become gurus and their votes are eventually going to be representative of their choices, even if it's not the most popular setup.

A lot of games here did follow the same pattern, and its a shame.
Ticket to ride is also a great example of that, it is clearly better and more popular at higher counts, and yet, here, we play at 2 players on BOTH versions (Original and Europe), which makes them vastly different games, and not the for the best.

It would be a great addition if we could make it random (and different each season) from a pre-selected pool of options to be decided every year, for instance.

[WarmPopcorn]

I can’t wait for 2P. It’s super rare to get a fair (3 similarly skilled players) for a 3P arena game, so a majority of my games have been really dull. I’m hoping for more fair games with 2P.

[Gnugly]

I think that's the main issue, I love 3p as a concept, but seldom enough do you have 3 equally skilled players (in which case it is really fun), most of the cases it is 2 good players and 1 weaker player, which leads to a 2p fight for first with the weaker player being some extra RNG to add to the mix. Now, there is some skill on how to manipulate the weaker player to attack your opponent, or to how to make sure you're not colliding with their goals etc.. etc.., but I don't find that kind of gameplay that fun, I prefer to play with predictable opponents, or ones that are able to see through others' bluffs.
The other case for 3p is 1 good player vs 2 weaker players, which is just kind of boring imo, but it is probably more fun than 2p good vs much weaker opponent (although in the latter you have more room to experiment with random stuff).

[Kulikk]

2p Equating to 3p skill (or even being needed/required) is just not true. Multiple of the top 10 players come from the Dutch 4p scene and don't, afaik, even play 2p.

That's because noone serious plays 3p arena.

[RoyalRook]

2p Equating to 3p skill (or even being needed/required) is just not true. Multiple of the top 10 players come from the Dutch 4p scene and don't, afaik, even play 2p.

That's because noone serious plays 3p arena.

There are plenty of good players in 3p arena. The steam community does not have monopoly on all top players in the world. I played with plenty of players that will give anyone a good game. In fact, it's a shame that not more top 2p players experience the 3p arena scene. The none corp one, season 16 was amazing. You missed out.

The none corp era 3p meta was crazy, and changed throughout the season. I would never look at cards like breathing filter the same again, and science was actually science, you can really feel the progression of TM.

I said this before and I will say it again, I can easily get a serious 2p TM match in many platforms, but only on BGA currently you can have a serious 3p match via arena, and pretty much every participant cares about a match and want to win in their own capacities. That's a rare and awesome occasion to experience 3p TM you may never get the chance again. 2p TM will always be there for us, it will never go away, but a good 3p TM fight to the finish is just fantastic.

[charliec247]

I can also vouch for 2p and 3p being vastly different games. I mainly play 2p and I ventured into 3p once and got so thrown off because I'm so used to the pace of the 2p game. I also agree with 3P being really fun only if all 3 are similarly skilled or at least know what they are doing. I play 5p IRL, in a group where there are 2 strong players, one okay player, and 2 weak players. The card quality that you get each game varies wildly depends on who is passing to you, and whoever sits in between the two weaker players will always get a bonkers draft.

Anyway I prefer 2p on here because I get the least downtime between turns and given that most of the time I play on my phone having less things to keep track of is better for me given the small screen. As for the "most competitive setting"? IMHO in any game it has to be 2P. Not only does it make targeted attacks viable, whereas in 3+P other players get off free and thus you can't be as aggressive as possible with this strategy, but there's no kingmaking in 2P. Plus, if it is clear who's going to win, we can concede early to save time instead of having to play it out. Yes there are merits to getting 2nd but a heads up game is more clear cut and you have full control of the outcome rather than having a non-related third party screw up your standings.

[brh2113]

As for the "most competitive setting"? IMHO in any game it has to be 2P. Not only does it make targeted attacks viable, whereas in 3+P other players get off free and thus you can't be as aggressive as possible with this strategy, but there's no kingmaking in 2P. Plus, if it is clear who's going to win, we can concede early to save time instead of having to play it out. Yes there are merits to getting 2nd but a heads up game is more clear cut and you have full control of the outcome rather than having a non-related third party screw up your standings.

Agree, in any game 2p is always going to be the most competitive format, where you can experiment and learn from your mistakes rapidly, and every move you make can be evaluated with simple zero-sum logic. You can see this clearly in games like Ark Nova or Azul, which are fun with more players, but 2p is obviously the competitive format. Even a game like Great Western Trail that's probably more interesting at 3p or 4p is going to be most competitive at 2p.

Which format is most fun, of course, is a separate question. If you enjoy 3p then that's great, and when you get 3 equal skill players it can be very fun for sure. For me I've found I'm liable to get into a game with me, someone else good, and a total beginner. That's fine, we all start somewhere, but when the beginner is passing me cards like Insects and Kelp Farming in the drafts and then funds Landlord it doesn't feel like a "real" game of TFM to me.

Personally I'm really looking to 2p arena some day!