TM is not a best 2Players game :( (nt)

[dialectic42]

I've lost with Gen 1 AI central. Twice.

I've probably only played Gen 1 AI central ~15-20 times before too.

Just twice in 5 and a half thousand games?

Lucky… must have lost at least half a dozen gen 1 AIC games.

Is it lucky, or is Bogeyun just the best player in the world? I think evidence points to the latter.

[HappyMeaI]

The fact of the matter is still that TM was not developed and is therefore not balanced to be a 2P-game.

As a result, the outcome of a game is much more dependent on luck than normal, which makes it much less fun for Arena games.

it may not have been developed to be a 2p game, but by some chance it ended up being best balanced for 2-3p. Anything above is just pure randomness.

2p & 3p have a decent amount of skill, with most people believing 2p to be the format with least randomness mostly cause of the kingmaking being removed.

Do I need to 24-7 this game and be over 800 ELO to disagree with this?

I enjoy all formats. I actually prefer 4p to 3p, because the kingmaking tends to balance itself out. Although, generally most ppl will pile on against the highest rated player initially. Personally I have a pretty high W/R in 4p mode and I do think that “pure randomness” isn’t the right way to describe it. There’s plenty of anticipation and setting certain opponents up to open plays up for yourself.

I enjoy 2p just as much and play it a lot for fun, not ranked. If I played rank I could easily reach 6-700 because building ELO is mostly just a commitment thing and it’s inflationary. I definitely do not believe this game to be balanced around 2p. The only thing balanced about it is the fact that either player has the same chance to rng X cards. I’ve been playing with my friend probably 2-3 games a day for many weeks now, and I would say he is fairly good around 500+ elo. We have both had 5+ win streaks against eachother on different occasions, a bunch’ve 2 game streaks, but mostly it’s a 50/50 split.

I’m definitely open to a 7-800 “top elo” playing me HU one game at a time for weeks to see if the frequencies shift. I just don’t believe the 80% W/R thing is accurate. I don’t believe there are “skill-based” answers to things like AI in the first 3 gens, EC, or Protected Habs. I believe there are “luck-based” answers which people will usually use as confirmation bias that it was mostly their ability that helped them overcome these cards. It’s like when you start out with the nuts in poker but get out drawn, or when you start out with a bad hand and draw into the nuts. A lot of players can’t compute that it is mostly the luck of the game, not the skill, that brought them to victory.

Being balanced would mean that any and all opens have a near equal chance of winning against eachother so long as you chose the most optimal opening. It would mean that winrates among similar elo opponents would lean towards 50% over the long run probably with 5-10 pts of std deviation min in this game. It would mean that I can happily choose Thorgate with an average open and defeat someone who chooses Luna with an average open. We know that’s just not the case. So how can we presume 2p is balanced?

[RoyalRook]

It's waaaaaay easier for me to win 2p arena than 3p arena. For 2p arena I just need to beat top players couple times, for 3p I have to dodge king making which I have no control over sometimes. I lost two 3p arena seasons because of pointless king makers in my game and lost over 35 arena points each game while only getting 2 or 3 points for wins, how is that more competitive over 2p which I have more control over my games????? It's that simple.

[Bogeyun]

The fact of the matter is still that TM was not developed and is therefore not balanced to be a 2P-game.

As a result, the outcome of a game is much more dependent on luck than normal, which makes it much less fun for Arena games.

it may not have been developed to be a 2p game, but by some chance it ended up being best balanced for 2-3p. Anything above is just pure randomness.

2p & 3p have a decent amount of skill, with most people believing 2p to be the format with least randomness mostly cause of the kingmaking being removed.

Do I need to 24-7 this game and be over 800 ELO to disagree with this?

I enjoy all formats. I actually prefer 4p to 3p, because the kingmaking tends to balance itself out. Although, generally most ppl will pile on against the highest rated player initially. Personally I have a pretty high W/R in 4p mode and I do think that “pure randomness” isn’t the right way to describe it. There’s plenty of anticipation and setting certain opponents up to open plays up for yourself.

I enjoy 2p just as much and play it a lot for fun, not ranked. If I played rank I could easily reach 6-700 because building ELO is mostly just a commitment thing and it’s inflationary. I definitely do not believe this game to be balanced around 2p. The only thing balanced about it is the fact that either player has the same chance to rng X cards. I’ve been playing with my friend probably 2-3 games a day for many weeks now, and I would say he is fairly good around 500+ elo. We have both had 5+ win streaks against eachother on different occasions, a bunch’ve 2 game streaks, but mostly it’s a 50/50 split.

I’m definitely open to a 7-800 “top elo” playing me HU one game at a time for weeks to see if the frequencies shift. I just don’t believe the 80% W/R thing is accurate. I don’t believe there are “skill-based” answers to things like AI in the first 3 gens, EC, or Protected Habs. I believe there are “luck-based” answers which people will usually use as confirmation bias that it was mostly their ability that helped them overcome these cards. It’s like when you start out with the nuts in poker but get out drawn, or when you start out with a bad hand and draw into the nuts. A lot of players can’t compute that it is mostly the luck of the game, not the skill, that brought them to victory.

Being balanced would mean that any and all opens have a near equal chance of winning against eachother so long as you chose the most optimal opening. It would mean that winrates among similar elo opponents would lean towards 50% over the long run probably with 5-10 pts of std deviation min in this game. It would mean that I can happily choose Thorgate with an average open and defeat someone who chooses Luna with an average open. We know that’s just not the case. So how can we presume 2p is balanced?

Anyone can disagree regardless of elo or # of games played! (FYI my # of games played is less than the majority of people in the top 100!)

I've enjoyed 3-4p from time to time too - "pure randomness" was an exaggeration on my part and a strong player will win much more than they lose even at higher player counts - but you are far more at the mercy of your starting cards+corp was my point. Having Tharsis/CC and getting easy access to a couple milestones can be instantly game winning. Having no MS/Award is usually just a death sentence. Games go way shorter - so your starting cards matter SO much more. Half the cards in the deck (production) are just kinda useless cause games end fast.

You (mostly) correctly point out some of the 2p flaws and balance issues where some corps are better than others. Some cards are better than others. But are you saying that's not the case in 4p/5p!?!? This game still has a lot of RNG regardless of player count - of course an average hand with PL will be favored to beat an average hand with Thorgate. (But the game is far from decided just from these starting cards too).

At no point did I say 2p is perfectly balanced - i just said I believe it's the 'most' balanced, although I think you could make an argument for 3p - even though I wouldn't agree. Part of the fun of this game is that some corps are good, some are kinda bad. Some cards are good, some are kinda bad. If everything had very identical power levels it wouldn't be that interesting imo. Some games you gotta make stuff work and find ways to win with bad corps/cards which is a skill in itself.

And yeah - you can believe that the 84% win rate is 'not accurate' as you put it - but at this point I have a pretty big sample size of games and I'll be the first to admit (and complain) that a very large portion are against 300-400 elo opponents, but a decent amount are also vs 500-600elo opponents too. This game has a lot of room for skill expression when played at 2p which is why you'll see the same few players generally with the top elo.

[rambling_coherently]

If I played rank I could easily reach 6-700 because building ELO is mostly just a commitment thing and it’s inflationary.

The "I could be x Elo if I tried" are my favourite posts. It's free to say, because the only reason you aren't, is because you haven't tried. You could do it as a challenge. Go get 700 Elo in Arena, show everyone how easy it is.

(I'm well aware I couldn't)

[HappyMeaI]

If I played rank I could easily reach 6-700 because building ELO is mostly just a commitment thing and it’s inflationary.

The "I could be x Elo if I tried" are my favourite posts. It's free to say, because the only reason you aren't, is because you haven't tried. You could do it as a challenge. Go get 700 Elo in Arena, show everyone how easy it is.

(I'm well aware I couldn't)

You definitely could. I believe anyone could, especially with a focus on 2p. In fact I was stuck in the 3-400s until I joined a cpl round-robin tournaments on accident and shot up over 500. 2p is the quickest and surest way to build your elo up.

Ofc I don’t want to minimize anyone who is like 750-800+. These players are the very best skill wise , and I realize there is a difference between say 800 and 750, but I think anyone who puts in the time and effort will achieve this skill level over a season or two.

[PleaseAGB1]

Thanks to everyone for their opinions. For the poster who said, paraphrased, 'anyone can be 800+ elo if the spent the time and effort to do so'... yes, the tautology that 'practicing and putting effort into something will make you better at that something' is indeed accurate. Whomever cared to be the arena champion / top ELO rank, self evidently, put in the time and effort to do so (unless, you know... they hack the BGA UI and assign themselves these accolades).

I am no fan of capitalism; but I understand that huge successful companies in capitalism, aside from having the inherent advantages that capital bestows in the capitalistic system, are successful because people vote with their dollars. If no one ever bought an Apple product, for example, it would not be a successful company. People spend their money on the products they believe are worth it.

In the same manner, analogously, I opine that the gurus of each game vote with their feet / participation. It seems that the gurus have selected 2p for arena. I don't play arena, and I'm not a guru; but I heartily agree. 2p T Mars is the closest thing to a balanced, fun experience for me. I also do not enjoy kingmaking, making social deals and alliances etc. etc. . Thus, my predilection for 2p.

For those who aspire to games with the 'purest skill expression' formats - there are heavier games on here on BGA without a deck of cards to draw from, with little randomness etc. etc. .

To each their own. For my part, here on BGA there's no need to have anything but 2p T Mars games, since I find them the most fun.


Thanks for coming to my TED talk. The valet can validate your parking ticket.

[ArchDevious]

The current top player of TM is 815 elo. In 7 Wonders, which has more than 4 times as many games played, the top player is 585. Does that not show there is so much more skill in TM? On a scale of Chess to Candyland I suspect TM is way closer to Chess. I pretty much only lose to sub 450 elo if they dream draw all the Jovians, any other draw and they don't have much a chance. Versus a top 10 player even when I get lucky draws I still lose. I don't even know how I lost when they had a weaker corp and a weaker start. All I know is I got outplayed and can only say GG.

[primrose1234]

If I played rank I could easily reach 6-700 because building ELO is mostly just a commitment thing and it’s inflationary.

The "I could be x Elo if I tried" are my favourite posts.

Agreed. Pure denial combined with lieing to yourself.

[Bogeyun]

The fact of the matter is still that TM was not developed and is therefore not balanced to be a 2P-game.

As a result, the outcome of a game is much more dependent on luck than normal, which makes it much less fun for Arena games.

it may not have been developed to be a 2p game, but by some chance it ended up being best balanced for 2-3p. Anything above is just pure randomness.

2p & 3p have a decent amount of skill, with most people believing 2p to be the format with least randomness mostly cause of the kingmaking being removed.

Do I need to 24-7 this game and be over 800 ELO to disagree with this?

I enjoy all formats. I actually prefer 4p to 3p, because the kingmaking tends to balance itself out. Although, generally most ppl will pile on against the highest rated player initially. Personally I have a pretty high W/R in 4p mode and I do think that “pure randomness” isn’t the right way to describe it. There’s plenty of anticipation and setting certain opponents up to open plays up for yourself.

I enjoy 2p just as much and play it a lot for fun, not ranked. If I played rank I could easily reach 6-700 because building ELO is mostly just a commitment thing and it’s inflationary. I definitely do not believe this game to be balanced around 2p. The only thing balanced about it is the fact that either player has the same chance to rng X cards. I’ve been playing with my friend probably 2-3 games a day for many weeks now, and I would say he is fairly good around 500+ elo. We have both had 5+ win streaks against eachother on different occasions, a bunch’ve 2 game streaks, but mostly it’s a 50/50 split.

I’m definitely open to a 7-800 “top elo” playing me HU one game at a time for weeks to see if the frequencies shift. I just don’t believe the 80% W/R thing is accurate. I don’t believe there are “skill-based” answers to things like AI in the first 3 gens, EC, or Protected Habs. I believe there are “luck-based” answers which people will usually use as confirmation bias that it was mostly their ability that helped them overcome these cards. It’s like when you start out with the nuts in poker but get out drawn, or when you start out with a bad hand and draw into the nuts. A lot of players can’t compute that it is mostly the luck of the game, not the skill, that brought them to victory.

Being balanced would mean that any and all opens have a near equal chance of winning against eachother so long as you chose the most optimal opening. It would mean that winrates among similar elo opponents would lean towards 50% over the long run probably with 5-10 pts of std deviation min in this game. It would mean that I can happily choose Thorgate with an average open and defeat someone who chooses Luna with an average open. We know that’s just not the case. So how can we presume 2p is balanced?

Just looking at your most recent loss, I'm ~3 gens into the game and the amount of mistakes made already would turn this game from a loss to a win if played more accurately. I'd be willing to bet that at least half of your last 10 losses were winnable games, if not more.