bga will have higher elo difference relative to steam 1) larger non expert player base (no requirement to buy the game) 2) 100 elo minimum on BGA creating elo points over time. Also depends on total played games no idea how many are played on steam per time vs bga...Kulikk wrote: ↑07 January 2025, 14:37Well on steam with k32 and starting elo of 1500 elo ceiling is 2300+. Without abusing BGA's elo system I think that 800 is easily achievable with proper play. For reference my peak steam elo was around 2130 which felt waaaay harder than 731 on bgaMasterMystery wrote: ↑07 January 2025, 12:55 On balanced games 2p is more competitive, but compared to for example ark nova, tfm is far less balanced, cards, corps etc. also game mode dependent.
1) corps are not balanced, the strength changes with player count. As there is no draft of corps, or all selected, this is not a decision. Simply said production corps get better with fewer players as on average there are more generations, tharsis and saturn better with more, mining better with fewer, ... So inherently for which player counts/average generations are they balanced for, that already impacts if 2/3/4/5 player is more balanced and to a lesser degree competitive
2) average generations are more in two player and you target the one opponent you have production swing cards asteroid mining consortium, etc are no brainers, is that a skill or not? opportunity cost is marginal early to mid game compared to benefit while in 3 player there are decisions (is opportunity cost too high vs non-targeted player, whom to target etc) (so regarding last statement: "In 3p you get random buffs and nerfs from player interaction," you get exactly the same in two player with those cards, whoever draws them randomly first in the draft will get it..)
3) seeing fewer cards without draft (which is considered gold standard) and with lower player counts again impacts corp balance (specific symbol/type card corps get better)...
will be interesting to see long-term what the elo ceilings will end up etc. TFM has quite some skill but inherently game balance in the game and cards themselves is far far lower than most think.
Red thumbs don't affect arena matchmaking.
TRansparency and also switch to top 100 elos, somebody play 100 games per day but lose over half of them should not have any say on how everyone else competes in the upcoming Arena Season. The top 100 elo players would represent the most competitive format, which is what arena all about.Corbz wrote: ↑07 January 2025, 16:00 It's looking like we're sticking with three player mode (definitely not my preference despite placing Top 5 in all three seasons). I've posted a Suggestion to make the guru system and Arena format voting more transparent (without trying invoke any witch hunts of gurus). See what you think and up vote if you like.
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40486
Are you saying BGA needs to improve their systems?
Because we all agree. They need to fix their guru system, elo system(-10% stacking against same opponents), and confusing red thumb system. I told them, red thumb shouldn't block you from playing with the same player. You can only avoid a player by blocking him. That way, no one accidentally exclude a player forever because they had one bad experience with him for whatever reason that maybe. If someone block a player, he fully understood he won't be playing with him anymore.Top-100 Elo, like the current system, is flawed, as it just changes a bias for another one. It potentially creates other problems as well, makes it difficult for outsiders and will very likely be a limiting factor in changes within the game-modes between seasons as the current one is naturally a good fit for the current deciders.RoyalRook wrote: ↑07 January 2025, 17:07TRansparency and also switch to top 100 elos, somebody play 100 games per day but lose over half of them should not have any say on how everyone else competes in the upcoming Arena Season. The top 100 elo players would represent the most competitive format, which is what arena all about.Corbz wrote: ↑07 January 2025, 16:00 It's looking like we're sticking with three player mode (definitely not my preference despite placing Top 5 in all three seasons). I've posted a Suggestion to make the guru system and Arena format voting more transparent (without trying invoke any witch hunts of gurus). See what you think and up vote if you like.
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40486
Corbz you can also make a comment on transparency in my suggestion, or/and start another one: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=140954
Fun and competetivness are two seperate things (although for some like myself they go hand in hand), it's quite easy to imagine that 3p might be more enjoyable for more players looking for strictly "fun" factor, and 2p for palyers looking for a more competetive approach. It's just a matter of what arena is supposed to be, if it's goal is to create a competetive environment with a ladder people are aiming to climb it should be 2p. If its supposed to be the place where its easy to find opponents for whatever people find fun to play it can be 3p, 5p or whatever other setting. I'm completely fine with either approach to arena. I'm just not entirely sure if arena's puprose is to treat the game like a monopoly or game of life ^^Rutabaga00 wrote: ↑07 January 2025, 20:33Top-100 Elo, like the current system, is flawed, as it just changes a bias for another one. It potentially creates other problems as well, makes it difficult for outsiders and will very likely be a limiting factor in changes within the game-modes between seasons as the current one is naturally a good fit for the current deciders.RoyalRook wrote: ↑07 January 2025, 17:07TRansparency and also switch to top 100 elos, somebody play 100 games per day but lose over half of them should not have any say on how everyone else competes in the upcoming Arena Season. The top 100 elo players would represent the most competitive format, which is what arena all about.Corbz wrote: ↑07 January 2025, 16:00 It's looking like we're sticking with three player mode (definitely not my preference despite placing Top 5 in all three seasons). I've posted a Suggestion to make the guru system and Arena format voting more transparent (without trying invoke any witch hunts of gurus). See what you think and up vote if you like.
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40486
Corbz you can also make a comment on transparency in my suggestion, or/and start another one: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=140954
It cant be a good thing for the community if the result of a game gives a privilege, or a superior right of expression. It is a very slippery slope.
Anyway, Top-100 players are not representative enough of the entire pool of arena gamers.
And i'm sorry, but a player that play 100 games per day (whatever the result is, as long as the player is playing seriously) is more than entitled to have a say about how things are done.
Without him, 100 games/day are gone for everyone else as well...and as far i as i am concerned, i dont want to play alone. You need opponents to do so. And since you weigh by yourself 5%, 10% or 15% of the games played/day, of course you should have a say about how you do so. The only say, no, of course, dont get me wrong. The guru system, is, by nature, flawed.
The game is considered by players to be a better fit at 3. Why would playing an inferior fit be better for the community ?
Why would it be a more competitive setup ? Do we play Monopoly at 2 ?
I firmly believe that several options should be considered as acceptable by the community (and i have no problem with having 2P as one of them), and we could have a random choice done between them. I dont know about every game, of course, but i think that with 3 or 4 options, you cover most cases, you avoid much trouble and division within the community, and you avoid arena-modes that just never changes. Because i think that being able to be a good player on different game-modes (if they're good enough to have a large pool of players) is a better proof of intelligence and understanding of the game.
