CHANGE ARENA to 3 players

[SavageCj]

this game was never intended to be a 2 player game... quite boring

[Ceaseless]

Ticket to Ride is best with 2 players. Naturally the Arena reflects that.

[ExaltedAngel]

Also 3 players is the worst possible player count

[Jontia]

Ticket to Ride is best with 2 players. Naturally the Arena reflects that.

I'm a bigger fan of 4-players. The double routes are open, giving that extra bit of flex, but there are multiple people pressuring with the opportunity cost of picking up a big stack of cards before playing out routes.

But it's not surprising to see 2-players in arena, due to the way the gurus selection works.

[MadManMark]

Arena format voting is done by "gurus" about a week before the start. Shouting this demand into the void, just a day after the new season start and nearly the full three months before the next vote is taken, may be the most pointless forum thread created recently.

Furthermore, suggesting this change but not bothering to explain your reasons beyond a single word, vague adjective ... however "boring" you find this, I find you more "lazy." There is a case for 3 player that could be made. Before I came to playing TTR online I'd played 3 a lot, and tended to prefer it, back in my first weeks and months on DoW site I tended to play 3 payer more than most. But you apparently can't be bothered to even try to take the time to make that case, for something you apparently feel so strongly about that you needed to create an entire new forum thread to discuss

[Countes-Olivia-Manny]

Globetrotter - Most Completed Tickets instead of Longest Route would be a better choice.

[Ceaseless]

Ticket to Ride is best with 2 players. Naturally the Arena reflects that.

I'm a bigger fan of 4-players. The double routes are open, giving that extra bit of flex, but there are multiple people pressuring with the opportunity cost of picking up a big stack of cards before playing out routes.

But it's not surprising to see 2-players in arena, due to the way the gurus selection works.

When you have more than 2 players it tends to lessen the skill in any game that's decently interactive. One reason for this is that you can get punished for other player's mistakes. Players can make bad players for themselves, and it ends up rebounding on you and helping a different opponent, or even vis versa, where you're winning, but it's less to do with you and more to do with one opponent completely messing up another.

Another related reason is goals overlap, if two players have similar goals their chances can be ruined through no fault of their own, they're just naturally damaging each other. That's less of an issue in two player, because everyone is facing the same burden, so the two players duke it out to see who can get the key routes. But when there's more than two players the unaffected player(s) just clean them out.

[Jontia]

I disagree that more players requires less skill. Different skills certainly, in terms of route planning and management, more players means you must be more flexible, planning routes with cut outs and options to divert around others. The key locations and routes expand to include more points and early capture of those choke points becomes critical.

Simply because something is more predictable doesn't make it higher skill. Absolutely a single poor player in a multiplayer game can spike a better player due to their place in the turn order or their inability to recognise the leader, but those potential problems still only increase the skill required to play well and win consistently.

[ExaltedAngel]

I disagree that more players requires less skill. Different skills certainly, in terms of route planning and management, more players means you must be more flexible, planning routes with cut outs and options to divert around others. The key locations and routes expand to include more points and early capture of those choke points becomes critical.

Simply because something is more predictable doesn't make it higher skill. Absolutely a single poor player in a multiplayer game can spike a better player due to their place in the turn order or their inability to recognise the leader, but those potential problems still only increase the skill required to play well and win consistently.

I don't think Ceaseless meant that with more players less skill is required, rather that the effect of luck is amplified because there are a lot more factors to consider that are not under your control which may affect the results regardless of the actual merit of players

[Ceaseless]

I disagree that more players requires less skill. Different skills certainly, in terms of route planning and management, more players means you must be more flexible, planning routes with cut outs and options to divert around others. The key locations and routes expand to include more points and early capture of those choke points becomes critical.

Simply because something is more predictable doesn't make it higher skill. Absolutely a single poor player in a multiplayer game can spike a better player due to their place in the turn order or their inability to recognise the leader, but those potential problems still only increase the skill required to play well and win consistently.

The ability to randomly lose for reasons that have nothing to do with your decisions does not increase skill. If one players tears you apart, whether those reasons be malicious, genuine but incompetent, or even just simple but unfortunate conflict of interest, you lose. There's not much you can do about it, the decision isn't in your court. There is no "just play better". You can mitigate the damage but that won't top unaffected players. The chances of playing perfectly and still losing increase, as do the chances of playing badly while still winning.

You can try setting up 3 different routes in Ticket to Ride and all of them can be wiped out before your next turn comes around through no fault of your own. You can have an overlap battle with another player and even if you completely outplay them you lose to the player with no resistance. You could play a completely perfect game, and a much greater percentage of the time it just doesn't matter, you'll lose because your opposition is always stronger than you in ways you can't compete with because there are more of them than you. Your say in how the game goes is greatly reduced when there are more than 2 players. Everyone is outgunned, who ends up winning says much more about luck and less about good decisions than it will with 2 players.

In 2 player there isn't such a degree of imbalance. My opponent's vendettas don't make a difference. If the opponent targets me, I can defend my routes or hit them back. If I secure two separate paths they can only take one of them in a turn, so I'll go down the other. If we get into a war of attrition, it's just me and them, even if they tear me apart if I hold out better then there won't be some unaffected party to sweep up the win. A player is much more likely to be rewarded for good decisions than they will be with more players.