Will arena ever not be 2 player?

[bsopchak]

2 player is basically the worst.

[Ceaseless]

2 player is the best, as usual, so it's probably sticking around.

[T72on1]

2 player is basically the worst.

Why do you think it's the worst?

I enjoy Splendor on all player counts, and think that each player count has it's own merit. Having said that, as with a lot of games, the lower the player count, the more competetive the game gets, as blocking the other player becomes more and more of an important tactic to use. So I definitely get why people want 2 players as setting for arena, which is a competitive mode after all.

[bsopchak]

It's the worst because "why did I lose? Because my strategy to get points was destroyed by cards coming up immediately after mine that my opponent could buy with what they had. I had to spend turns to build up resources for buys and RNG gave them cards that matched what they already had."

Sometimes I win because of it, but RNG is worse the fewer players you have. I've played 4-5 games in a row where strategy basically didn't matter. It might as well have been a coinflip at the start to end it faster.

[Ceaseless]

It's the worst because "why did I lose? Because my strategy to get points was destroyed by cards coming up immediately after mine that my opponent could buy with what they had. I had to spend turns to build up resources for buys and RNG gave them cards that matched what they already had."

Sometimes I win because of it, but RNG is worse the fewer players you have. I've played 4-5 games in a row where strategy basically didn't matter. It might as well have been a coinflip at the start to end it faster.

You basically described what more than 2 player is. A roll of the dice. You don't have control over the winner in a game where your opponents all have more influence than you, since there's more of them. That's also why games that don't have 2 player commonly don't have high rated players.

There's some luck in Splendor, but not nearly enough to stop better players from usually winning. That's why higher rated players exist. You can't get those ratings without being able to reliably beat weaker opponents. If I face a 300, they'll eventually get a lucky win, but I'll still mop the floor with them so much that it matches the large difference in what we get for winning. Even when they get lucky, they'll still usually lose. That's not possible in really luck-based games.

[FrankJones]

It's the worst because "why did I lose? Because my strategy to get points was destroyed by cards coming up immediately after mine that my opponent could buy with what they had. I had to spend turns to build up resources for buys and RNG gave them cards that matched what they already had."

Sometimes I win because of it, but RNG is worse the fewer players you have. I've played 4-5 games in a row where strategy basically didn't matter. It might as well have been a coinflip at the start to end it faster.

How is this less of a problem in multiplayer?

Also, despite this, player nevertheless manage to get themselves to nearly 1000 Elo. Elos in that range indicate a game that luck is a small factor compared to skill. There are complex thematic strategy games that do not have Elos past 800.

[bsopchak]

It's less a problem with more players because there's more turnover in the market. The strategy is less "well, this is the crappy market we have, I hope I don't give my only opponent the win by buying this card I saved up 3 turns for" and more be prepared to adapt to the more frequent market changes. When a 2 player market is bad, the strategy becomes "try not to be the one that buys from the bad market, try to be the one that does nothing for endless turns".

[FrankJones]

It's less a problem with more players because there's more turnover in the market. The strategy is less "well, this is the crappy market we have, I hope I don't give my only opponent the win by buying this card I saved up 3 turns for" and more be prepared to adapt to the more frequent market changes. When a 2 player market is bad, the strategy becomes "try not to be the one that buys from the bad market, try to be the one that does nothing for endless turns".

In a 4-player game, there are 3 opponents who might get a lucky card that comes up. And you still might be stuck with no good card to acquire.

[doctorchris]

2 player Splendor is already one of the longest games I play. With 3 or 4 players it would just take too long for my taste.

[bsopchak]

It's less a problem with more players because there's more turnover in the market. The strategy is less "well, this is the crappy market we have, I hope I don't give my only opponent the win by buying this card I saved up 3 turns for" and more be prepared to adapt to the more frequent market changes. When a 2 player market is bad, the strategy becomes "try not to be the one that buys from the bad market, try to be the one that does nothing for endless turns".

In a 4-player game, there are 3 opponents who might get a lucky card that comes up. And you still might be stuck with no good card to acquire.

Market turnover makes it at least not stagnant. I'd rather have new cards I can't buy than the same ones sitting there taunting me.