Arena settings - 3 players

[Mazedriver]

In my opinion, this game is only interesting from 4 players and up, and ideal with 5. The 3 player version is no fun at all, as it renders the game much more luck based than it already is.

So here's hoping the game setting for arena play will be 4 or 5 players next season. And yes, I know it's the gurus who vote for it. I have been one in several games myself. I just don't think I'll play this game nearly enough to become a guru, so that's why I'm putting this out here.

To be clear: I absolutely love this game, especially in real life. But not at 3 players. At all.

You admit that you don’t play this game much but then give factually inaccurate statements about it. What’s the point?

No, the 3-player version is not more “luck-based”, it is in fact less luck-based. See my explanation elsewhere in this same thread, but the gist of it is that with more players, you need to account for a greater number of unknown cards in your bidding and trick-taking phases, naturally making the game more random.

I never said I don't play this game much. Just not enough to be a guru. My online plays might be limited, but I have played this game a lot in real life. And I have a high win rate there.

You might have a high ranking here, but it goes too far too claim I give factually inaccurate statements in this thread and pretend you have the truth just because of that. So let's not go that route.

Skull King on the whole is quite luck based, on all player counts. If that wasn't the case, top arena and all time players would have much higher points. Rereading my post, I admit I definitely got the focus of my message wrong though. I still think that 3 players makes the game more random and 4 to 5 players is the sweet spot. But I also think that the game is much more fun at higher player counts than 3. Which is another reason why I hope Arena will change to a higher player count. If it doesn't, fine too, I will probably stick to regular games. Arena should be catered to the majority of players who want to add some competition. Not to me as an individual.

I mean, the discussion turns pointless when you not only deem my vastly greater playing experience and level as irrelevant, but also refuse to engage with my arguments.

I’ll try once again: 3-player mode makes the game less random, not more. Below is an illustrative example.

Let’s say I have the following six-card hand in round 6: pirate, black 13, black 11, yellow 7, purple 5, escape. This is a fairly obvious bid of 3 in a 3-player game, and I can rely on realising my bid almost 100% of the time if I play the hand with enough skill. I will definitely be able to lose my three non-trump cards and will most likely guarantee winning tricks with the three trumps, unless I unluckily do not get to act last for a big portion of the round and one of my trumps ends up being taken with someone else’s pirates or Skull King.

Now let’s say I have the exact same 6-card hand as described above, but in round 6 of a 5-player game. The only bid that is realistic here is 1, or perhaps 2 if I’m feeling lucky. Regardless of which of these two I pick, there is no way for me to “near-guarantee” making my bid the same way as I did in a 3-player game. I almost never get to act last (due to more players), meaning that whenever I put one of my strong cards down, someone will get to act after me and will likely play a stronger card if they have it. They can also suddenly decide to NOT play their stronger card after mine, forcing me to win more tricks than I bid. Of course, the same could also happen in 3-player games, but this occurs at lower rates since I will act last a much greater fraction of the time, reducing the unpredictability.

I win more than half of my three-way games against lower-ranked opponents since certain hands (sets of cards), in tighter scenarios with less players and more tricks in which you get to act last, simply allow you to near-guarantee making your bid. I demonstrate this with the above example and could give more examples if you wish.

There is not the same logic in a 5+ player game, and any claim to the contrary is just false. You are free to look over games of top-ranked players in 3-player mode versus their games in 5-player mode and you will see for yourself that they make their bids more often when there are less players. Even top-ranked players who often dabble in 5+ player games have told me that they find these much less skill-based, but that they enjoy playing them for fun or other reasons.

Lastly, I never said anything about Arena games and I believe these games should suit the preference of the majority of the playerbase. If that preference is 5-player games, 5-player games is what the Arena should host. My only point is that unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the game don’t help the cause here.

[T72on1]

You admit that you don’t play this game much but then give factually inaccurate statements about it. What’s the point?

No, the 3-player version is not more “luck-based”, it is in fact less luck-based. See my explanation elsewhere in this same thread, but the gist of it is that with more players, you need to account for a greater number of unknown cards in your bidding and trick-taking phases, naturally making the game more random.

I never said I don't play this game much. Just not enough to be a guru. My online plays might be limited, but I have played this game a lot in real life. And I have a high win rate there.

You might have a high ranking here, but it goes too far too claim I give factually inaccurate statements in this thread and pretend you have the truth just because of that. So let's not go that route.

Skull King on the whole is quite luck based, on all player counts. If that wasn't the case, top arena and all time players would have much higher points. Rereading my post, I admit I definitely got the focus of my message wrong though. I still think that 3 players makes the game more random and 4 to 5 players is the sweet spot. But I also think that the game is much more fun at higher player counts than 3. Which is another reason why I hope Arena will change to a higher player count. If it doesn't, fine too, I will probably stick to regular games. Arena should be catered to the majority of players who want to add some competition. Not to me as an individual.

I mean, the discussion turns pointless when you not only deem my vastly greater playing experience and level as irrelevant, but also refuse to engage with my arguments.

I’ll try once again: 3-player mode makes the game less random, not more. Below is an illustrative example.

Let’s say I have the following six-card hand in round 6: pirate, black 13, black 11, yellow 7, purple 5, escape. This is a fairly obvious bid of 3 in a 3-player game, and I can rely on realising my bid almost 100% of the time if I play the hand with enough skill. I will definitely be able to lose my three non-trump cards and will most likely guarantee winning tricks with the three trumps, unless I unluckily do not get to act last for a big portion of the round and one of my trumps ends up being taken with someone else’s pirates or Skull King.

Now let’s say I have the exact same 6-card hand as described above, but in round 6 of a 5-player game. The only bid that is realistic here is 1, or perhaps 2 if I’m feeling lucky. Regardless of which of these two I pick, there is no way for me to “near-guarantee” making my bid the same way as I did in a 3-player game. I almost never get to act last (due to more players), meaning that whenever I put one of my strong cards down, someone will get to act after me and will likely play a stronger card if they have it. They can also suddenly decide to NOT play their stronger card after mine, forcing me to win more tricks than I bid. Of course, the same could also happen in 3-player games, but this occurs at lower rates since I will act last a much greater fraction of the time, reducing the unpredictability.

I win more than half of my three-way games against lower-ranked opponents since certain hands (sets of cards), in tighter scenarios with less players and more tricks in which you get to act last, simply allow you to near-guarantee making your bid. I demonstrate this with the above example and could give more examples if you wish.

There is not the same logic in a 5+ player game, and any claim to the contrary is just false. You are free to look over games of top-ranked players in 3-player mode versus their games in 5-player mode and you will see for yourself that they make their bids more often when there are less players. Even top-ranked players who often dabble in 5+ player games have told me that they find these much less skill-based, but that they enjoy playing them for fun or other reasons.

Lastly, I never said anything about Arena games and I believe these games should suit the preference of the majority of the playerbase. If that preference is 5-player games, 5-player games is what the Arena should host. My only point is that unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the game don’t help the cause here.

I'm not sure why you keep putting words in my mouth that I just haven't said. I never said I don't play much, but you stated I did. Now you say I deem your vastly greater playing experience and level as irrelevant, but also refuse to engage with your arguments. Which again isn't something I said or did.

Of course your playing experience is relevant. Although strictly speaking you can't know how much I have played the game in real life and as such can't compare your experience to mine. I have played the game a lot but chances are real you played it more. But beyond a certain point there are diminishing returns as far as experience goes, so I would like to think we are both experienced players.

Indeed the logic for 3 and 5 player games is different. But just as you give an example of an easy 6 trick prediction for a 3 player game I could do the same for a 5 player game. Maybe it's more a matter of what player counts one is used to than anything else.

Anyway, I hope we can continue this thread with respect for each other.

[Mazedriver]

I never said I don't play this game much. Just not enough to be a guru. My online plays might be limited, but I have played this game a lot in real life. And I have a high win rate there.

You might have a high ranking here, but it goes too far too claim I give factually inaccurate statements in this thread and pretend you have the truth just because of that. So let's not go that route.

Skull King on the whole is quite luck based, on all player counts. If that wasn't the case, top arena and all time players would have much higher points. Rereading my post, I admit I definitely got the focus of my message wrong though. I still think that 3 players makes the game more random and 4 to 5 players is the sweet spot. But I also think that the game is much more fun at higher player counts than 3. Which is another reason why I hope Arena will change to a higher player count. If it doesn't, fine too, I will probably stick to regular games. Arena should be catered to the majority of players who want to add some competition. Not to me as an individual.

I mean, the discussion turns pointless when you not only deem my vastly greater playing experience and level as irrelevant, but also refuse to engage with my arguments.

I’ll try once again: 3-player mode makes the game less random, not more. Below is an illustrative example.

Let’s say I have the following six-card hand in round 6: pirate, black 13, black 11, yellow 7, purple 5, escape. This is a fairly obvious bid of 3 in a 3-player game, and I can rely on realising my bid almost 100% of the time if I play the hand with enough skill. I will definitely be able to lose my three non-trump cards and will most likely guarantee winning tricks with the three trumps, unless I unluckily do not get to act last for a big portion of the round and one of my trumps ends up being taken with someone else’s pirates or Skull King.

Now let’s say I have the exact same 6-card hand as described above, but in round 6 of a 5-player game. The only bid that is realistic here is 1, or perhaps 2 if I’m feeling lucky. Regardless of which of these two I pick, there is no way for me to “near-guarantee” making my bid the same way as I did in a 3-player game. I almost never get to act last (due to more players), meaning that whenever I put one of my strong cards down, someone will get to act after me and will likely play a stronger card if they have it. They can also suddenly decide to NOT play their stronger card after mine, forcing me to win more tricks than I bid. Of course, the same could also happen in 3-player games, but this occurs at lower rates since I will act last a much greater fraction of the time, reducing the unpredictability.

I win more than half of my three-way games against lower-ranked opponents since certain hands (sets of cards), in tighter scenarios with less players and more tricks in which you get to act last, simply allow you to near-guarantee making your bid. I demonstrate this with the above example and could give more examples if you wish.

There is not the same logic in a 5+ player game, and any claim to the contrary is just false. You are free to look over games of top-ranked players in 3-player mode versus their games in 5-player mode and you will see for yourself that they make their bids more often when there are less players. Even top-ranked players who often dabble in 5+ player games have told me that they find these much less skill-based, but that they enjoy playing them for fun or other reasons.

Lastly, I never said anything about Arena games and I believe these games should suit the preference of the majority of the playerbase. If that preference is 5-player games, 5-player games is what the Arena should host. My only point is that unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the game don’t help the cause here.

I'm not sure why you keep putting words in my mouth that I just haven't said. I never said I don't play much, but you stated I did. Now you say I deem your vastly greater playing experience and level as irrelevant, but also refuse to engage with your arguments. Which again isn't something I said or did.

Of course your playing experience is relevant. Although strictly speaking you can't know how much I have played the game in real life and as such can't compare your experience to mine. I have played the game a lot but chances are real you played it more. But beyond a certain point there are diminishing returns as far as experience goes, so I would like to think we are both experienced players.

Indeed the logic for 3 and 5 player games is different. But just as you give an example of an easy 6 trick prediction for a 3 player game I could do the same for a 5 player game. Maybe it's more a matter of what player counts one is used to than anything else.

Anyway, I hope we can continue this thread with respect for each other.

I can see from your profile that you are one of the best players in the world in several board games and have vast experience in many of them, certainly wasn’t trying to be offensive and I trust that you have a lot of experience when it comes to playing.

What it comes down to for me is the aspect I mentioned, which is position and frequency of being last in a trick. This is why, as I mentioned, most strong players in Skull King make their bids more frequently in games with less players (you are welcome to look over statistics on my profile or that of any other Top-20 player).

Being last in a trick 15-20% of the time compared to 30-40% of the time on average makes it near-impossible to reliably make profitable bids (i.e., those above 1 or 2) without being derailed by opponents acting after you whose move you could not have reliably predicted (unless you have an exceptionally strong hand, that is, which will happen very rarely…).

I suppose you are right that more experience with 5-player games = more skill in that type of game, I just don’t see the logical justification for why those multi-way games should be less random, the evidence seems to be that with less players, there are less unknown variables and you are thus more in control…