For the love of all that is holy in the heavens and on the earth, can we use the 5-6 player map for 3-4 player counts?

[Kaladry]

Even 3 player on the standard board has so much room that it rarely involves blocking, or having to consider putting a starting building on anything that isn't 5-9.

I could see your point until you said this because nearly every game with 3 people I encounter blocking as well as not taking starting places that are 5/6/8/9. Quite often I have to start with 3/4/10/11 or even forgoing getting all different resources because of the lay of the tiles plus my draw of starting position.

I only play Arena though so maybe you're just playing less skilled players.

[Jontia]

I only play Arena though so maybe you're just playing less skilled players.

This is an assumption, that I would assume the opposite of. The arena setting are garbage. Every choice is designed to speed the game up, and increase the significance of going first as well as the luck factor. I'll apologise now, because the rest of this post will be blunt. But as mentioned a while ago, given the title of the thread and the tenor of the opening post I don't feel being polite about my disagreement is likely to bring any benefit to the discussion. (Not that this necessarily means I am the best Catan player out there. I make choice too quickly, repent at leisure, don't tend to track who's likely to play revenge games or where the resources are for my monopoly card, and regularly get beaten by people who are just better at the game.)

• 3 Players

This is the point under discussion, so obviously opinions will differ. 3 players has more space. The choices for placement are more open. Placement 1 and 6 will give significantly "better" number than placements 1 and 8 which should be obvious. What isn't so obvious is the difference between placements 1,6 VS 3,4 and 1,8 vs 4,5. Where's the advantage, where's the balance? In my opinion validated by the choices made for real world tournaments 4 players balances the initial settlements better, the lack of options towards the end offsetting the open choices for the earlier players in a way that doesn't happen with 3 people where the "worst" placement is only number 6.

• Shuffle Harbour

I don't see this as an issue really, but it does occasionally give wonky set ups with harbours more important for the end game (wood, sheep) positioned near each other or all the 3:1 harbours clumped together that can increase the importance of certain sections of the board making early choices more important. Anything that increases the importance of initial placements impacts the 3 player game more increasing first player advantage.

• Friendly Robber

There are endless threads arguing about this, but this is a garbage setting. It advantages players with the best initial placements (first player) and almost makes this into a different game. Development cards go way up in power, because I can hold off being blocked for ages by building up a massive collection of secret victory points and powerful cards, block my rivals and generally just play out a game plan that can't be interrupted.

• Variable set up with random numbers

This is the most blatant point against you. This is an awful setting, it leads to lopsided boards that can be won on the initial placement, massive first player advantage and generally quick, but pointless games.

Every time I look at the Catan arena settings at the beginning of the season, it is clear that the gurus have no idea how to make this a competitive or fair game. There is no chance there are more skilled players in the arena, there are just players who want to play quick games. Skilled players do not want friendly robber, they do not want random numbers and they do not want 3 players and they definitely don't want 3 players on an even bigger board.

[Kaladry]

This is an assumption, that I would assume the opposite of. The arena setting are garbage. Every choice is designed to speed the game up, and increase the significance of going first as well as the luck factor.

Sounds like you need to play enough to become a guru to vote on the arena settings then. In case you didn't know, the gurus are the people who play the most, and therefore are most likely to know the game.

Sure I agree with some of your points about the arena settings but part of being a good player is being able to work within those boundaries each season as they change. I for one loathe friendly robber for exactly what you mentioned, but just take advantage of it for the season then. From the settings you'd apparently prefer, it sounds like each game would be the same boring one every single time where you can easily just learn the best places to claim to start every time.

[Jontia]

From the settings you'd apparently prefer, it sounds like each game would be the same boring one every single time where you can easily just learn the best places to claim to start every time.

Variable setup shuffles the terrain around and the spiral of numbers shifts around the desert. That's the setting I prefer.

Variable setup with random numbers shuffles the terrain and the numbers leading to games with clumps of good numbers together in a way that advantages the first player.

I did try one month to get the number of games up and become a guru, but my mostly turn based time on BGA didn't add up to enough. But it was always unlikely. The settings we have for arenas are based around playing quick games, for all the reasons mentioned above. To play more games on a slower setting requires even more time. This is why we won't see C&K in the arena and the current settings are unlikely to change much. They prioritise fast games over good ones, all of which means the people who pick those settings will play the most games.