Good players and 4p games?

[Marlenn]

Hello, I'm looking for a good player (500+ ELO) who plays successfully 4p games.

[landus]

hey. my top elo (back when I was playing only 4p strong+) was 640 130%. avg ~ 580. nevertheless I would say 4p is an unbalanced format and needs house rules to make it competitive. good 4p players certainly exist. what is your question?

[Marlenn]

hey. my top elo (back when I was playing only 4p strong+) was 640 130%. avg ~ 580. nevertheless I would say 4p is an unbalanced format and needs house rules to make it competitive. good 4p players certainly exist. what is your question?

Great, thank you.
I don't have a question actually, I just wanted to analise few 4p games. To learn something new.
Most offline tournaments are based on this format but it's SO HARD to find any good 4p game (with clever decisions, good balance etc.) on BGA or... anywhere

[landus]

ah I see. given that you mentioned offline tournaments and there’s one taking place in Leszno in less than a week I assume you’re particularly interested in tharsis 4p w/o the colonies expansion. then I would suggest you take a look at my games before 01/12/2025 (scrolling down is painful. filter game history instead). these were mostly played on tharsis and very often all 4 players have 400+ elo. also here’s a 4p game in which 3 players have 550+ elo: https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=801769387

[stillframe]

hey. my top elo (back when I was playing only 4p strong+) was 640 130%. avg ~ 580. nevertheless I would say 4p is an unbalanced format and needs house rules to make it competitive. good 4p players certainly exist. what is your question?

What do you mean by unbalanced format? Some particular cards, or .. ?

[landus]

What do you mean by unbalanced format? Some particular cards, or .. ?

opponents may (even by chance) choose complementary playstyles and indirectly favour each other. you can’t predict their moves & opponents’ bad moves can significantly hurt you rather than help you. hate cards hurt more (and people play them just as frequently as in 2p despite them being considerably worse). every card’s value shifts depending on the game’s pace & its direction (preludes really don’t help here). there’s some imbalance regarding corps on different maps although not as big as people usually believe it to be. you run through the deck quickly which doesn’t help any suboptimal strategy. and there’s more…

[ArchDevious]

4p is great offline, it sucks on BGA because elo is awarded based off placing so playing for first is disincentivized. I follow the "If ain't first you're last" philosophy, so I assumed everyone will attack the leader. Last place will then target me because he knows he cant catch the leader so might as well go for 2nd or 3rd. You can see some crazy award funds that accomplish similar purposes

[AlphaPrime1]

4p is great offline, it sucks on BGA because elo is awarded based off placing so playing for first is disincentivized. I follow the "If ain't first you're last" philosophy, so I assumed everyone will attack the leader. Last place will then target me because he knows he cant catch the leader so might as well go for 2nd or 3rd. You can see some crazy award funds that accomplish similar purposes

What do you mean? Once someone realizing that they can NOT possibly compete for first, because they are smart, they can't pivot for 2nd? That's crazy???? Sounds like someone is indeed crazy. There is a whole movie making fun of the concept of if you aren't first you are last, it's called Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, you should check it out.

How's unintelligent play of everyone can only competing for first, a superior gaming experience according to you? Check out the concept of meta as well please

[FrankJones]

4p is great offline, it sucks on BGA because elo is awarded based off placing so playing for first is disincentivized. I follow the "If ain't first you're last" philosophy, so I assumed everyone will attack the leader. Last place will then target me because he knows he cant catch the leader so might as well go for 2nd or 3rd. You can see some crazy award funds that accomplish similar purposes

What do you mean? Once someone realizing that they can NOT possibly compete for first, because they are smart, they can't pivot for 2nd? That's crazy???? Sounds like someone is indeed crazy. There is a whole movie making fun of the concept of if you aren't first you are last, it's called Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, you should check it out.

How's unintelligent play of everyone can only competing for first, a superior gaming experience according to you? Check out the concept of meta as well please

In a house game at the dining table, where no Elo is awarded, I would rather pursue a 1% chance of winning than guarantee I finish 2nd or 3rd by pummeling the player in 4th place. That might not be your approach, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people take a similar approach. Among other reasons, It's kind of a shi__y thing to do to the player in 4th place, and that might dissuade some players in the gaming group from wanting to participate in the future.

[AlphaPrime1]

You also don't want to just gave the 2nd place a free ride, when there is no chance of winning. Also pointless attacking the leader when victory is assured make the third place frustrated as well. Just play the game.