Arena format

[kvarclovag]

I'm sorry that the BGA Arena format is 2-player. Rumble Nation is really good with 3 or 4 players. And there are a lot of 2-player games in BGA Arena, 3 or more is not enough.

[Strode]

There are a lot of games like this, where the Arena player count is on the low side.

I think Gurus (i.e., voters) are heavily represented by people who like 2 player games. It's easier to win at 2 player.

[Ceaseless]

There are a lot of games like this, where the Arena player count is on the low side.

I think Gurus (i.e., voters) are heavily represented by people who like 2 player games. It's easier to win at 2 player.

Games are almost always more skillful at 2 players. It's pretty much the default. Less variance, player politics, etc. You usually have to intentionally design a game for it to be otherwise, and even then, there's a good chance of failing. Unsurprisingly, a lot of players that can vote tend to lean towards rewarding technical play, and so 2 player is commonly favored.

Increasing the player count doesn't really make it harder to win. It's more like playing the lottery. It's not hard to win the lottery, just take the winning ticket, anyone could do it. Technical skill isn't the obstacle with winning the lottery, it's just down to luck. A similar issue emerges with increasing the player count, just to s lesser degree than the lottery (most of the time). It takes less skill to win with more players; you just have to sit through the variance and at some point, the game is more likely to fall in your lap than it will in 2 player. You don't win as often as you do in 2 player, with the exception of really bad players, their winrates might go up, since skill is less of a factor in victory, so simply outplaying everyone doesn't work as well.

[Jellby]

Besides, higher player counts make it more and more difficult to fill a table.

[Strode]

There are a lot of games like this, where the Arena player count is on the low side.

I think Gurus (i.e., voters) are heavily represented by people who like 2 player games. It's easier to win at 2 player.

Games are almost always more skillful at 2 players. It's pretty much the default. Less variance, player politics, etc. You usually have to intentionally design a game for it to be otherwise, and even then, there's a good chance of failing. Unsurprisingly, a lot of players that can vote tend to lean towards rewarding technical play, and so 2 player is commonly favored.

Increasing the player count doesn't really make it harder to win. It's more like playing the lottery.

It does in the sense that 50% of the players win in 2-player versus 20% in 5-player.

[Ceaseless]

There are a lot of games like this, where the Arena player count is on the low side.

I think Gurus (i.e., voters) are heavily represented by people who like 2 player games. It's easier to win at 2 player.

Games are almost always more skillful at 2 players. It's pretty much the default. Less variance, player politics, etc. You usually have to intentionally design a game for it to be otherwise, and even then, there's a good chance of failing. Unsurprisingly, a lot of players that can vote tend to lean towards rewarding technical play, and so 2 player is commonly favored.

Increasing the player count doesn't really make it harder to win. It's more like playing the lottery.

It does in the sense that 50% of the players win in 2-player versus 20% in 5-player.

This is a case where language can definitely throw off the conversation. When I read difficulty, I interpret it as meaning it takes more effort to do something more difficult. I would not be surprised if others did too. What you describe is chance of success, which I'm not sure I'd equate to being the same thing. For instance, if I had a 60% chance of beating someone at a 1 mile race vs a 50% chance of beating them when tossing a coin, I would say the 1 mile race is far more difficult than the coin toss despite my better odds because it takes way more effort. Or if you want to align it to gaming, take a game of Chess or any other game of skill. I would say the same tends to apply to higher player counts. It is usually more difficult to win in 2 player games than 5 despite the better odds because your chances of success are tied to your efforts.

50% winrates vs an opponent requires playing just as well, with some leeway for variance as you are responsible for your half of the game. If you play worse than them, then you can find yourself taken apart and only get minimal victories, possibly as low as 0%. The 20% of the game you are responsible for in 5 player is much less impactful, and unlike in 2 player, where the 50% your opponent uses is directly tied to making sure you lose, the 80% opposed to you has no such commitment. In fact, if you play badly much of your opposition may even help you as they tear down bigger threats. The decisions your opponents make that support you may end up contributing more to you than anything you could accomplish yourself, as you are only 1 player. A 0% winrate in 5 player is generally less likely than in 2 when dealing with imbalances for this reason. The scale changes on a game-to-game basis, but this is the natural tilt caused by player count. I'd say one of the biggest sliding scales involved is interactivity, if 5 players are just playing solitaire with themselves and everyone else is just decoration with a high score contest at the end, then this is less of an issue. But if all 5 players are actively playing with each other, everyone's decisions impacting the game everyone else is playing, that's where the issues I describe matter most.

[Strode]

I get what you're saying ceaseless. A 2-player game against a committed opponent can be very challenging.

Ultimately, I think a lot of games play better at 3+ than 2, even if they aren't harder. The multiplayer dynamic can be very interesting. For me, Chess is my "serious" game.

[kvarclovag]

Rumble Nation is a pretty big game of luck, whether you're playing with 2 players or more. But the game is much more fun and interesting with 3 or 4 people. And besides winning, having fun is also important to me. And unfortunately, there are really few games in the arena that can be played with 3 or more players.

[Jellby]

You can always play outside Arena.

[Stalloner]

I think the 2 player format is good for a game that is JUST starting on the site, more players and the arena games will take hours to start, specially because lots of people don't like ranking in games, is scary for someone to be qualified with a number.


Give it more time to be more known on the site and 3 or 4 player arena will become more viable, because right now it is not.