Season 19 thoughts, 2p vs 3p Terraforming Mars

[Dikvarkentje]

Because it simply is. Every board game that can be played 1v1 is the most competitive that way, because of the nature of the game. In each sport you get teams playing against each other, you don't get football or basketball with 3 teams randomly trying to score on one another. That's chaos. It is the same for TfM, or any other game.

It is not a consensus of any sort. The game is balanced for 3p, as many other games. But the most competitive, or professional setting of any game is 2p. As simple as that.

You have Wingspan which is balanced for 4p. But in Arena people play 2p. And not only that, since some of the cards are overpowered, they excluded them from the deck for the competitive game. Game designers are not always right, obviously.

Your example with chess is another bad example. That's only the time control. It is still one player vs another player, although there are versions of chess allowing 4 players, nobody serious suggests that for a competitive game.

In terms of ELO - I agree, the ladders should be counted separately, but that's not the case for any game on BGA. Btw, number of games played are mostly allowing you to be great at Arena. In the regular ladder, you don't need many games to be on top of the ladder at all. You just need to beat top opponents. With Arena it is much more randomized, and you can't choose opponents - you will play all the leagues and ranks all the time, if there are not enough players online. While in regular, you can put a high level filter and just play a game against 500+ elo opponent all the time.

It is because it is cant be an answer.
Like Sarevain said, there are multiple sports and kind of competitions that allows for plenty of opponents playing/racing at the same time.
Most of competitive settings are between 2 opponents, but its a card game, its not like soccer or basketball.

And i am sorry, but on BGG,(its not an absolutely sure thing , but over 2.000 people is a serious sample) did vote and express their preferences, and 3P is largely (almost 3 times the number of votes) considered to be a better fit for the game. Its not the only fit, its just better.

I used the example of chess to illustrate the fact that different Elo should be considered for different gamemodes co-existing. Because you cant consider Elo as a way to pick who has the right to vote for arena or not.

Wingspan is a game i dont know. But what i see is that its (once again) mainly (but not exclusively, i know) setup to be played at 3 or 4, but here, in Arena, we play at 2.
Its a common feature of the website and how gurus are chosen, and it saddens me, because we always, eventually, get to play the lowest player count possible for way too many games, even when its clearly not the best option. I am not saying that it is absolutely sure its the case here, lets be clear.

I am happy to see that a predefined rotation sitation could be acceptable for others, thats i think, the best answer for that kind of problem, and it might help a lot of games in order to gain popularity and visibility.
I dont know about Terra Mystica, but 7 wonders was eventually hit by the same problem with player count, the last season was played at 3, which is a nonsense.

A pool of 4 options chosen/modified once/year is something that, i believe, could be a nice way to have everyone on board.

The problem with 3 or 4p in arena is the randomized nature of the player pool. In a field of competitive gaming you continuously run into games where at least 1 person is a novice at the boardgame. This in itself leads to games that are un-competitive in nature. Novice players (obviously) have no experience and are unable to evaluate card strength, table/draft positioning, strategy etc.

This, almost every game where theres atleast one novice, leads to games that are just not competitive. Whether its players who accidentally kingmake by handing over S tier cards and taking bad cards, players that end games too early for no real reason, setup free bonus bumps for others etc, or a whole other host of different things.

Tfm is a game of closed/open information. A lot of the "fun" at high level is centered around being able to evaluate yours and other' current situation and adjusting your gameplay accordingly. Novices are wildcards, due to their lack of knowledge it severely alters the way a person can and should play the game.

2P prevents this as the only one beneffiting or being disadvantaged by the plays is the other player. It is, in a mixed elo format, by far the superior version competitively.

3P and 4P arena could work if there were any actual elo systems in place.

[RoyalRook]

The match making is kinda ridiculous, I ask for high level games but still get Elo 100 and 200s in my arena games. It makes 3p matches very volatile. It almost make you want to just play with whoever bc I would rather than play with 2 low levels and one good player and one novice.

It feels like to me the match making would match only one or no player with your preference, then just grab whoever for the 3rd.

It's a RARITY, when I get to play with a full table with my preset preferences in arena.

[brh2113]

The match making is kinda ridiculous, I ask for high level games but still get Elo 100 and 200s in my arena games. It makes 3p matches very volatile. It almost make you want to just play with whoever bc I would rather than play with 2 low levels and one good player and one novice.

It feels like to me the match making would match only one or no player with your preference, then just grab whoever for the 3rd.

It's a RARITY, when I get to play with a full table with my preset preferences in arena.

Yeah looking through your match history, I see quite a few games where it's you, another good player, and a total beginner; so you're basically playing a 1v1 with random noise thrown in. As mentioned in the thread the beginner will make pseudo-random moves and "throw" the game in your favor 1/2 the time, and in the opponent's favor 1/2 the time, so it's "fair"; and maybe there's some skill involved in choosing "trap" strategies that the beginner player is more likely to play into. But personally I don't find those types of games very interesting so I'll stick to normal games for another season!

In arena, the only filtering you can do is by league, e.g. Elite only. But Elite league has plenty of 100-200 elo players in it so you're liable to get these types of games frequently. In normal mode you can filter on 500+ elo and get competitive games at larger player counts. It would be nice if you could do elo filtering in arena too.

[RoyalRook]

Oh it's so much worse for me last season in reality. Let me rant, omg. So as the reigning champion, everyone hit me right off the bat in 3p. It was exceptionally harder when I am matched up with another top ranked player plus an average player. Because and it's no fault of the top player to hit me exclusively since the 3rd have no chance to win, and the random weather player 3 will hit me bc he saw my name. There were games that I am trying to out duel gen1 earth cat or gen 2 AI while the 3rd hit me anyway bc he has no idea about the strength of those cards being played.

I had some pretty sick games as the result though, but yes I had to trap the top player and manipulate the 3rd at the same time, sometimes sell it all to gamble with tempo. The worst one was the one I was down over 25 points dead last, but still getting hit repeatedly by the two other players, I guess they just want to make sure I was dead bc I did a LOT of miracle come backs during the season.

My most memorable game has to be the one with Corbz, my Helion was all over the place It was crazy: https://boardgamearena.com/gamereview?table=588995120
This one was even better, me and Corbz did everything to fight for tempo: https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=585000660
Actualy every game between me and Corbz are just insanity so far, this is the actually the Helion game I was trying to show in the beginning, I finally found the right one, never played Helion like this nor put in this SUPER rare situation before, we both essentially have to play just about perfect: https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=583372647
Glados LeHunter, Corbz and many others pushed me to play some really cool lines and the weak third has a lot to do with it.

[Rutabaga00]

Thats the ransom of glory. Of course a very strong player is going to be targeted, and likely over-targeted, i mean, its after all very human.

Accidental kingmaking is real, and thats one argument i could hear.

Is hitting you whereas you're the strongest player and then, the biggest threat for the win really a problematic thing ? It is, by definition, likely the best way for the opponent to win the game, after all. Picking wrong cards and unfortunate setups are a different thing, though.

But then, is it that common ? These accidents cant always be against you, sometimes you benefit from them as well.
As painful as it, is it, from a purely mathematical/ladder point of view, that much different from a vastly different strength of 1v1 schedule that will allow one player to climb much more quickly through the ranks than the other ?

After looking through some popular games, Heat is setup with a random map on Arena. At least its possible to get a random draw somewhere, but is it possible to do it before picking a arena setting, i dont know.

[HighlanderKG]

Because it simply is. Every board game that can be played 1v1 is the most competitive that way, because of the nature of the game. In each sport you get teams playing against each other, you don't get football or basketball with 3 teams randomly trying to score on one another. That's chaos. It is the same for TfM, or any other game.

It is not a consensus of any sort. The game is balanced for 3p, as many other games. But the most competitive, or professional setting of any game is 2p. As simple as that.

You have Wingspan which is balanced for 4p. But in Arena people play 2p. And not only that, since some of the cards are overpowered, they excluded them from the deck for the competitive game. Game designers are not always right, obviously.

Your example with chess is another bad example. That's only the time control. It is still one player vs another player, although there are versions of chess allowing 4 players, nobody serious suggests that for a competitive game.

In terms of ELO - I agree, the ladders should be counted separately, but that's not the case for any game on BGA. Btw, number of games played are mostly allowing you to be great at Arena. In the regular ladder, you don't need many games to be on top of the ladder at all. You just need to beat top opponents. With Arena it is much more randomized, and you can't choose opponents - you will play all the leagues and ranks all the time, if there are not enough players online. While in regular, you can put a high level filter and just play a game against 500+ elo opponent all the time.

It is because it is cant be an answer.
Like Sarevain said, there are multiple sports and kind of competitions that allows for plenty of opponents playing/racing at the same time.
Most of competitive settings are between 2 opponents, but its a card game, its not like soccer or basketball.

And i am sorry, but on BGG,(its not an absolutely sure thing , but over 2.000 people is a serious sample) did vote and express their preferences, and 3P is largely (almost 3 times the number of votes) considered to be a better fit for the game. Its not the only fit, its just better.

I used the example of chess to illustrate the fact that different Elo should be considered for different gamemodes co-existing. Because you cant consider Elo as a way to pick who has the right to vote for arena or not.

Wingspan is a game i dont know. But what i see is that its (once again) mainly (but not exclusively, i know) setup to be played at 3 or 4, but here, in Arena, we play at 2.
Its a common feature of the website and how gurus are chosen, and it saddens me, because we always, eventually, get to play the lowest player count possible for way too many games, even when its clearly not the best option. I am not saying that it is absolutely sure its the case here, lets be clear.

I am happy to see that a predefined rotation sitation could be acceptable for others, thats i think, the best answer for that kind of problem, and it might help a lot of games in order to gain popularity and visibility.
I dont know about Terra Mystica, but 7 wonders was eventually hit by the same problem with player count, the last season was played at 3, which is a nonsense.

A pool of 4 options chosen/modified once/year is something that, i believe, could be a nice way to have everyone on board.

I explained in the rest of the article why it is, it is not without explanation. I can do that again. Of course, racing, or athletics are bad examples, again. It has nothing to do with the board game settings because there is ultimately no interaction between the racers/participants, if it happens, it is sanctioned. You can have a huge number of participants in some sort of naval race, hundreds, even thousands of people racing from point A to point B, without interaction with each other.

That's why TfM and other board games you don't play like a solitaire, where you do have interaction between players, is the most competitive with 2p. By adding players you increase interactions which ultimately leads to kingmaking, or flawed game results, which is the reason why 3p can't be the best competitive format, by definition.

Every 3p+ game is kingmaked, to some level, even with same level of players. Also by definition. Because when you get to player interaction, you can target one or the other player. Your decision, even if it is correct (you target the player with more points/money/plants/whatever), benefits the third person. You don't have that in 2p.

Also, it is not true that many people vote for a format. There are 100 gurus, and less than 60 voted and decided that Arena will be 3p again. That's actually an incredibly flawed system. If you have players decide the format, the only correct should be top 100 voting. If there is a danger that people who are playing the most don't like Arena system quit, then it would be maybe justifiable from BGA standpoint, but not only Arena games count towards guru status. All games count.

So I hope my fellow 2p lovers will just play more games until the season ends and we will then change the format by becoming gurus.

[Rutabaga00]

Of course there are interactions between opponents in racing, cycling or athletics, for instance!
Interactions dont limit themselves to physical contact or whatever.
Simply deciding on a strategy or the pace will affect others, even if its not the best thing for yourself.

I mean, just take a race like a 1500M or 3000M in olympics, you'll often see runners rushing the pace in order to help another ones even if they shot their own chances. Should we have a 1v1 for that kind of event then ?
In cycling, in smaller groups, there is a dynamic going on with tactical dilemmas close to what we have here in TFM, where your decisions may benefit others more than yourself. Its exactly the same kind of thing we could have here at 3 (or even 4).

It seems to me that that there is possibly a slight overexaggeration of the impact of proper kingmaking, especially in regard to to the fact that arena matchmaking is random.
You're saying 3P is naturally flawed, but one could also consider that a gamemode where close to half the games dont reach their end is likely not balanced enough to play it that way.

Surprised to see so few people voting, though, even if the timing of the year may affect this.
The problem with top-X voting is that elo is connected to player count. It is not representative of the variety of opinions.
But dont worry, eventually, we will end up having 2P, because it always works like this with the guru system as player count is also connected to the number of games played, and then guru status.

Edit : I dont know if im clear, but i dont mind playing 2P. What i do mind about is the "necessity" of 2P, and the slight lack of consideration for others and especially newcomers to a game. To play, you need everyone. I'll also say that arena settings are usually following the same pattern which makes them problematic as they will always end up in favour on the lowest player count and they tend to never offer any sort of variety throughout the seasons.

[HighlanderKG]

The interactions are minimal. While in group, cyclists or runners can save energy, racers with good finish will dictate slower tempo etc, but ultimately everybody is running at their own pace. In cycling, individuals can break away from the group, runner outsiders can choose to dictate their own pace.

But even if you are correct about that, that's less than 1% of sports/competitions humankind invented from the beginning of time.

It is almost always team vs team or player vs player. Every free for all game, no matter what kind, is usually considered entertainment. And board games are entertainment, hobby, intended to put people together and have fun playing the game with each other. For that purpose, game designers created board games playable by more than two people. There are games playable by 10+, and they are called party games for a reason.

But, if we take a board game, in this case, Terraforming Mars, and decide to take it to competitive level online, the only correct format is 2p. That's the format where random and luck of the draw is minimized to the maximum, because both players affect the game by drafting cards, and there are no third player that messes up with their game.

It is not exaggeration, EVERY 3p+ game is kingmaking someone to win. There are games where that player would win anyway, but every action that interacts with another player benefits the third player. By definition.

I don't know why is it so hard to understand, it is not only completely common sense, it is like everyday actions.

If you decide to play sabotage, you can play it on one of the players. If you throw an asteroid, you can throw it on one of the players, not both. So, you are paying to get a benefit, but also to hurt another player. The third player has a benefit because they paid zero, and lost zero. And if they are targeted the least throughout the game by a big margin, you will get huge swings of points, even more than 10 in short games. And even if the decision was correct, throwing Deimos on the player with most plants who leads currently, you will allow the third player to convert plants and maybe gets to 8% oxygen, maybe get Gardener instead of targeted player, because you won't be able to do both - Deimos is very expensive, so you are likely going out after that action, allowing third player to do what they like without any interaction, which is a rare and valuable opportunity in 3p+. It is very simple.

The game is balanced for 3p by the intention of game designers. But game designers themselves never reached the level the best players currently have, not even close. In every game you have overpowered cards and unplayable cards, but with your decisions you intend to play every hand you get in the most optimal way. In 2p, you will easier spot your mistakes and raise up your level faster.

In my opinion, newer players don't even have to play Arena. Arena should be the most competitive format, and crown the best player on the site. You have a freedom to create every type of game you want and play with the people of similar skill.

For instance, many people play 5+ games per day with 100 elo people and collect that 1 elo reward, just to stay near the top of the rankings. I put a filter to 500+ elo, because I want to play only with the best, and leave it even for 20+ minutes if nobody joins, I am doing something on the side meanwhile. The game lasts for 45-60 minutes, playing with people who are not that good is a colossal waste of time.

That's why almost nobody of the best TfM players who came to BGA never player Arena, the format is too random, it is not rewarding, and the games are long.

[Rutabaga00]

Interactions are clearly not minimal in a race.
Your tempo is directly affected by others, just like in TM.
And racing, athletics, golf and so on represent much more than 1% of the competitions made so far. That might weigh under 50%, but 1%, come on.

And i believe we simply have different definitions of the words. If Deimos down on that player is the correct play, its not kingmaking, its just the way the game should be played. Kingmaking is more decisive from interactive play.
Letting a jovian multiplier slip for an average card to a Saturn player with a good situation is already much closer to that grey area because its not the correct play anymore.

But thanks for taking the time to discuss, i understand your point, but as you said, it was balanced for 3P.
Reaching a certain level in less-balanced environment cant be a better argument than the purpose of the designers in regard to how the game is better used for everyone else.

I am willing to take time in order to sometimes have subpar game situations if its means that other times i do have a 3P game with 3 competitive players, where the game is at its best. Because i feel like we dont all have the same point of view and the same level of interests, especially considering that Arena matchmaking is random (which means that even a 2P Arena cant suit your habits.).

[RoyalRook]

The interactions are minimal. While in group, cyclists or runners can save energy, racers with good finish will dictate slower tempo etc, but ultimately everybody is running at their own pace. In cycling, individuals can break away from the group, runner outsiders can choose to dictate their own pace.

But even if you are correct about that, that's less than 1% of sports/competitions humankind invented from the beginning of time.

It is almost always team vs team or player vs player. Every free for all game, no matter what kind, is usually considered entertainment. And board games are entertainment, hobby, intended to put people together and have fun playing the game with each other. For that purpose, game designers created board games playable by more than two people. There are games playable by 10+, and they are called party games for a reason.

But, if we take a board game, in this case, Terraforming Mars, and decide to take it to competitive level online, the only correct format is 2p. That's the format where random and luck of the draw is minimized to the maximum, because both players affect the game by drafting cards, and there are no third player that messes up with their game.

It is not exaggeration, EVERY 3p+ game is kingmaking someone to win. There are games where that player would win anyway, but every action that interacts with another player benefits the third player. By definition.

I don't know why is it so hard to understand, it is not only completely common sense, it is like everyday actions.

If you decide to play sabotage, you can play it on one of the players. If you throw an asteroid, you can throw it on one of the players, not both. So, you are paying to get a benefit, but also to hurt another player. The third player has a benefit because they paid zero, and lost zero. And if they are targeted the least throughout the game by a big margin, you will get huge swings of points, even more than 10 in short games. And even if the decision was correct, throwing Deimos on the player with most plants who leads currently, you will allow the third player to convert plants and maybe gets to 8% oxygen, maybe get Gardener instead of targeted player, because you won't be able to do both - Deimos is very expensive, so you are likely going out after that action, allowing third player to do what they like without any interaction, which is a rare and valuable opportunity in 3p+. It is very simple.

The game is balanced for 3p by the intention of game designers. But game designers themselves never reached the level the best players currently have, not even close. In every game you have overpowered cards and unplayable cards, but with your decisions you intend to play every hand you get in the most optimal way. In 2p, you will easier spot your mistakes and raise up your level faster.

In my opinion, newer players don't even have to play Arena. Arena should be the most competitive format, and crown the best player on the site. You have a freedom to create every type of game you want and play with the people of similar skill.

For instance, many people play 5+ games per day with 100 elo people and collect that 1 elo reward, just to stay near the top of the rankings. I put a filter to 500+ elo, because I want to play only with the best, and leave it even for 20+ minutes if nobody joins, I am doing something on the side meanwhile. The game lasts for 45-60 minutes, playing with people who are not that good is a colossal waste of time.

That's why almost nobody of the best TfM players who came to BGA never player Arena, the format is too random, it is not rewarding, and the games are long.

Highlander, you can restrict Elo for arena as well in the main lobby instead of the Play NOW section, so you can mostly get one good player in your match. The reason I lost interest in the steam community is exactly what the BGA community feared: everyone just regressed to 2p and miss out all the other beautiful part about the game. 2p is too easy, I consider myself one of the best player in the world right? I am only interested in playing with about 3 other players in the world for 2p that's it. And even for those matches, I am not mentally challenged. It's just intense math and memorization for me.

What happened in the steam community is that there is no voices for other formats, and ALL those amazing players never developed their 3p meta beyond hodge's early days, and the 3p meta has looooong passed them by. They just stay in their little dark corner and grind 2p for like 4 years straight. Look at the way you describe 3p, it's so general and not true in applied game at all.

You are missing all the player manipulation and tempo plays that is truly exclusive for 3p. And the crazy part is that it's STILL evolving. Even for me, I have learned so much just by playing competitions here, imagine what else is there with even better meta and competitions from steam players. There are games can only be unlocked when all 3 players have combined 1800+ Elo, and they are just pure magic, 2p can never push a player to that height. If it's so easy to win 3p by simply transferring 2p to 3p, then why no one was able to step up? I mentioned this before in other thread, many have really tried from our steam community, and they all find out they can't crush it like in 2p. It's just harder with all the reasons I have listed out earlier. Step out of your comfort zone, take this rare chance to check out 3p in a more competitive setting, see if you can climb top 10 right? Then you can form a better opinion. 2p will always be there for us, but this is time for 3p, that's why Arena is so great, you put players in the same settings with deadline and find out who is the best in the end for that one setting. There is not a single 3p arena game that was a waste of my time, I just get better and better and better, learning crazy things. But for the past couple 2p games I played? Complete waste of my time.