Low level of play

[legendarydominator]

I am by far the weakest 7 Wonders player in my board game club, and other players recommended this website to me for practice. However, after playing some games, I’ve found that the level of play here is incredibly low—far below anything I’ve experienced at real-life board game clubs or gatherings, and I’ve played in quite a few.

Low-ranking players (100-200s) seem to play completely randomly, making it easy to win without even using a dual resource card or a Caravansery. Simply sticking to either a military or science strategy—whichever suits your wonder/setup better—is enough to secure victories. Supposedly stronger players (300-400s) have a better grasp of their wonder’s advantages but are incredibly rigid in their approach.

Take wonder-side selection, for example: no strong player ever chooses the A-side (yes, you’ll see 100- and 200-level players picking these sides randomly). In reality, for Olympia and Alexandria, the A-side is better than the B-side in about 70% of setups. Except for Halicarnassus—where the B-side is clearly dominant—the A-side is often significantly stronger for other wonders as well. For instance, if you’re playing as Rhodes and the clockwise setup is Rhodes → Olympia → Giza → Halicarnassus, you must play A-side due to much better wonder resource synergies and easier science-blocking opportunities. However, I played over 100 games on this website and have never seen any 300+ player except myself playing A-side Rhodes.

During gameplay, even so-called good players stubbornly stick to their strategies regardless of what others are doing. Say someone plays Halicarnassus and focuses on science in Age 1, only to have their science cards blocked in Age 2. A truly strong player would adapt by shifting to military (which chains from Age 1 science cards, by the way) and focusing on resource cards to ensure a strong Age 3. But on this website, players insist on forcing science no matter what.

I could go on for pages about issues like this, but ultimately, it would be far more beneficial if, instead of mindlessly grinding games, players took the time to analyze their own play. I suppose part of the problem is that it's incredibly easy to keep playing game after game on this website, whereas in real life, each game takes about half an hour and requires more thought.

[6element]

Hi, welcome to BGA!

I'd suggest filtering the level of opponents by using "Restrict table access" feature which is available in non-Arena games. Folks with Elo below 200 indeed can do random moves and lack of ability to filter them out in Arena is a major problem with this mode IMHO.

I'd disagree with side A vs. B for the case of classical edition, but for the new one your analysis makes sense.

Elo here is very fluid, so it's not a number, but more like a range. Skills of a player who is above 300 right now can be quite different from skills of another one who is never below 300.

Good luck!

[Wolfenguard]

Don't know What's the real Problem is here.
If the normal games are to easy, rank you elo up and go to the tournaments
Maybe you should change you view a little bit, on this page people around the world can play games together with different playstyles and knowledge. Some people maybe have no boardgame club aso in the near so they can only play online or want to meet people who play the games with different strategies.
Personally I think the fun of playing a game should be at the first position. Second meeting new people and learn new games.
For me winning the games makes only a little bit of the amount of fun I get trough playing the games. Yes it's more fun if you win the game close and not with a easy win, but like I said it's only a small part of the fun.

I could go on for pages about issues like this, but ultimately, it would be far more beneficial if, instead of mindlessly grinding games, players took the time to analyze their own play. I suppose part of the problem is that it's incredibly easy to keep playing game after game on this website, whereas in real life, each game takes about half an hour and requires more thought.

Na I think you see there is a problem where no problem is. The time difference between on playing online and offline, is based of the quality of life improvements of the bga page. Offline i have to check, can I build the card, have I enough resources, have I enough money to buy it, how much have I to pay to my neighbors. How is the military strength aso. This cost a lot if time, the same with the score at the end of the match. (Not included the tine for preparing the game aso )
On bga I can play a round of 7 wonders in my breaktime at work or when I have some free time. I played 7 wonders last week the first time in my board game club and we needed 1,5h for 1 game (needed 20 mins for explanation 1 new player)

[kkirigiri]

could you give us an example of a game where you feel these important concepts are missed?

I think constructive criticism is fine, but I feel like some of the things you mention are things I struggle with myself, i.e. when to play A for wonders like Giza and Rhodes, or when to transition from aiming to play reds to greens or vice-versa, part of the intrigue of the game is that you rarely are put in exactly the same situation twice, and I think you perhaps give players here less credit than they deserve. As in players above 200 will be thinking about what you mentioned, but more likely just be making mistakes in execution.

[tryasta]

Dear legendarydominator,

As a newbie here, I am sure I am not in the best position to reply to your post. As your junior, I feel I owe you respect and thinking twice before saying anything I could regret later on.

Therefore I will explain a personal story: At the ages 12-18, chess was my game. I played a lot. At some point I even won some prize money at some tournament. I didn't consider myself especially strong, but I was. I guess I still am in the World's top 3% or 4%. I could not understand why people didn't study openings. I could not understand why they didn't learn endgames. I thought it would be more beneficial for them if they took their time to study the game rather than aimlessly play game after game. I guess I didn't really respect them.

And you know what? I was wrong. Life happened and I cared about chess in a different manner. I understood people had the right to play the game just for fun, without the need to become the best player they could be. Some people didn't even care when they lost and it was alright.

I guess that what I would like to say is that I believe you are free to choose what you want to achieve by playing in BGA and it would be more beneficial if I didn't try to convince you to make the same choices I make.

[jjgllg]

I honestly don't understand this critic. I personally see many players picking sides for the resource synergy, including myself. When it comes to alexandria i have a very strong approach for playing red on b side. A side is indeed appealing for the capabilities but opponents can ruin you much easier than b side. Most players aren't good but that's with any game anywhere. You still have the top 100 players on elo list who are very solid and play advanced, complicated, thought out strategies, block each other and sacrifice for the long game. I would like to play with you, i could learn and i am sure i can put you some challenge on this.

[jjgllg]

could you give us an example of a game where you feel these important concepts are missed?

I think constructive criticism is fine, but I feel like some of the things you mention are things I struggle with myself, i.e. when to play A for wonders like Giza and Rhodes, or when to transition from aiming to play reds to greens or vice-versa, part of the intrigue of the game is that you rarely are put in exactly the same situation twice, and I think you perhaps give players here less credit than they deserve. As in players above 200 will be thinking about what you mentioned, but more likely just be making mistakes in execution.

strategy: I never stick to strategy on my first draw. The problem is you don't know what others have and in which hand will the important cards be in.
For an example if you want to intend to play green and the cards are in wrong order you may only get one while losing chances on other strategies. I prefer picking good resources and see what else falls for me, unless the first hand gives me valuable information that helps me doing something specific. Red is always good early in the game, even if your main strategy is green. Most efficient, if you succeed, is actually red-green. where you win on both.

Picking sides: look at what your neighbours produce and need. Aim to have the same goals, so you know that even if you miss the resource you want, you can buy. By far the most risky situation is playing rhodes b and not being able to get stone. Your game is doomed. Also on halicarnassos, you really need your stages. Some other wonders are or even if you don't get to build. Alexandria b is ok with just one stage.

Blocking: resources and green are common. Try to block resources that someone needs for a stage. If not, cut them off from a grey resource. Science: hide the single card, so you know there will not be another chance.

Build green: often risk a bit, but you need to pick some resources as well. Consider red especially on age 2 chained cards.

General: never be dependent on one single card coming your way, have some sort of backup plan if you miss something important. If your start is bad, often better to try to finish 2nd, instead of risking all in for win. An experienced opponent will punish you for the latter.

Most important: have fun.

PS: don't consider myself a great player, but i perform quite solid. Doesn't matter what level my opponents are. Actually weak opponents may make your game more difficult by taking illogical picks, and we all make mistakes time to time.

[Ratincage27]

Check out this excellent post from BGA arena player, WonderfulPlays: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/269712 ... unbalanced

I know your point is that which wonder side to pick is situational and that you're NOT saying that Side A is better for most of the wonders. That said, I think you overestimate how informative the wonder configuration is for which wonder is best for one to pick in a particular scenario. There should be a strong bias, at least for solid players, in favor of B-side for Hali, Rhodes, Ephesus, and Babylon whereas there should be a substantial bias toward the A-side for Olympia. I don't buy that seeing the wonder configuration allows even very good players to reliably predict the exceptions to these rules. Knowing which wonders others players have only gives a mild-moderate amount of info about how they will play given the randomness of the cards they will have the option to choose between and WHEN/if they can take the resource cards that serve their wonder.

This is from Wonderful Plays (a wonderful 7 Wonders player) Sep 7, 2021 post on the thread linked above:

players rated > 300 | players rated < 200
wonder average rank place rank | average rank place rank
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Giza A 55.0 6 0.54 9 | 46.7 8 0.28 5
Babylon A 52.2 13 0.47 13 | 44.6 14 0.21 13
Olympia A 53.5 11 0.52 10 | 45.7 13 0.22 10
Rhodes A 53.0 12 0.57 7 | 49.0 3 0.35 1
Ephesus A 54.5 7 0.60 5 | 46.5 9 0.25 8
Alex A 54.0 9 0.51 12 | 46.3 10 0.23 9
Hali A 54.4 8 0.61 3 | 46.8 7 0.25 7
Giza B 55.0 5 0.55 8 | 47.0 6 0.22 11
Babylon B 56.0 3 0.58 6 | 48.2 5 0.27 6
Olympia B 52.1 14 0.44 14 | 45.9 12 0.18 14
Rhodes B 56.0 2 0.63 2 | 49.2 2 0.31 3
Ephesus B 55.9 4 0.60 4 | 48.9 4 0.30 4
Alex B 53.6 10 0.51 11 | 46.2 11 0.21 12
Hali B 58.9 1 0.69 1 | 49.3 1 0.32 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Place of 1 = beating all opponents and .50 = beating half of opponents. In critiquing myself, I should pick Giza A more often than I do.

[Ratincage27]

Sorry the table formatting sucks but not sorry enough to fix it. Check out Wonderful Play's posts.

Legendary, you're correct that players should generally be more flexible and less fixed in their strategy; I just don't think that's as true for picking Wonders with the exception of Alex and Giza.

As others have mentioned, ELO fluctuates wildly. To estimate how good an opponent is, just look at their win percentage as the best indicator.

[Lukov]

What exactly is the problem here? To be more precise - whatever the problem is, what do you expect should be done?

Contrary to what you post here I feel a bit of contradiction in your own posts. Once you rack up a lot of games you start to see patterns - what is strong, what wins and so on. This goes for wonders, sides, number of players and given the experience - even depending on how strong your opponents are.

I personally prefer to play against strong opponents because they are in fact predictable. This is what I find a big issue on this website - the game is meant to be played competitively, in the sense that every player should be striving to play for the most points he can get. That even means that if he realizes he won't be first he will play for second and so on. When you play against unskilled opponents they set a goal (I will win red at all cost) or they straight up decide to fuck over some player. Said player can end up on 30 points, but will have achieved his "goal". The website does nothing to punish such behavior. Higher level players have thought into their play. The easiest example I can give is that if I am 4+ on red at the start of age 3 I should reasonably expect that the people I am next to will not invest 2+ reds in last age just to end up last and second to last.

Again, unless this is just some rant I can't say more until I see a coherent suggestion.