Please return to the 2-player model for arena

[Munchubie]

As the current arena season is coming to an end, I would like to spark the discussion regarding the 2-player vs 3-player model once again. I am aware of the fact that there is already an open forum about this topic, but I fear that the next season will be 3-player once again and I really would like to prevent that. If the current Guru vote is in favor of the 2-player model, ignore everything I am about to say

The disadvantages of the 3-player model have been widely discussed already and therefore I will simply give a summary of what I think are the most important points to mention.

- Speed: not much explaining needed; as someone who just wants to crank a quick Wingspan game during my lunch break, the 3-player games are simply way too slow. And even if you have more time to play games or you play turn-based, the game remains slow. What was once a fast yet strategic game, has now become a snooze-fest. And you would think that people in 3-player games could actually play faster as they have more time to think between turns about what their next play is, but for some reason that is not the case.

- Competetive balance: in a 3-player game there is a pretty big competetive advantage for whoever goes first, because they get to go first in round 4 as well (and therefore be the first one to look at the bird tray in 2 rounds, while the others only have 1 round in which they go first). Player 1 already has an advantage in a 2-player game, because they essentially get to choose between 8 birds at the start of the game. In a 3-player game this advantage becomes even bigger.

- Skewed matchmaking: a 3-player game with 2 high elo players and 1 low elo player makes it so the lower elo player has no chance of winning PLUS they are likely to ruin the balance between the 2 higher elo players by doing 'stupid' plays like activating a hummingbird, giving away free food or cards or hunting in situations that highly benefit one of the 2 higher elo players. And the worst part is that you can't really blame the lower elo player for that, as they are still learning. But as a consequence, one of the higher elo players has a significant advantage over the other simply because of the fact that the low elo player does not know what they are doing. It feels unfair for the losing high elo player and as the winning high elo player it does not feel rewarding to win simply because the lower elo player has feeded you the win. Not to mention the fact that coming in 2nd in that game as the higher elo player will kill your arena points.

- Skipping a player as soon as his time runs out and one player leaving near the end of the game feels way worse in 3-player games. People quit on the last turn before they lose, causing the other 2 players to tie, the 2nd place player skips the 3rd place player's turn as soon as humanly possible to prevent the 1st place player to win etc. etc.

The counterarguments imply that there is more balance and strategy in the game, because the bird feeder and card tray reset more often and the EOR's are not as one-dimensional + pink power cards are more useful. Yes, sometimes it can be really frustrating that the bird feeder is stuck, but it is part of the game and it can also be used as a micro strategy in a 1v1 game: knowing which food your opponent needs and grabbing that food yourself, which may result in you having to 2:1 your food to play a bird, but it costs the opponent 1 or maybe even 2 extra turns to get the food that they need (or draw different cards). The same goes for grabbing a bird out of the tray that might not be insanely good for your game (but could still be useful), just to prevent your opponent from getting that perfect card for their setup which would steamroll the game. If you don't get any EOR you have most likely not made correct decisions, so I don't see that as a big issue. And yes, I am aware of the fact that a small portion of the games are close to unwinnable because of bad luck with card drawing etc., but I don't think 3-player games make it so you don't have those type of games anymore. Plus, in those nearly unwinnable scenario's, you can't forfeit the game in a 3-player game, making it even more tedious to sit out the entire game (even worse with slow players).

Regarding the pink power cards, I still think they are useful in 1v1 games and there are plenty of worse non-pink power birds in 2-player games. And I simply couldn't care enough about pink powers to justify all the above-mentioned flaws of a 3- player game. If pink powers would be as useless in 2-player games as some people make them out to be, the game developer wouldve put 3-5 players on the box and not 2-5.

We have experimented with the 3-player model for a long enough time and I think it is now time to revert to the 2-player model given all the drawbacks of the 3-player model. The stats back it up, since the change from 2-player to 3-player arena, people have played significantly less arena games (even when you take into consideration the longer duration of the 3-player games). I don't know if it's even possible, but why not try out 2 seperate arena modes with a 2-player and a 3-player model? Then the people who want faster and more balanced games can play 2-player games, and the ones who enjoy cleaning the dishes or vacuuming during their active 3-player game, are also satisfied.

[MasterMystery]

If pink powers would be as useless in 2-player games as some people make them out to be, the game developer wouldve put 3-5 players on the box and not 2-5.

if it would be another designer maybe but he never cared about balance during game development and adjustment for different player counts. take viticulture per player cards, take imbalanced bird (which are banned here), take scythe expansion factions, ...

anyhow i read this on almost all games and i like the 2 players modes, as you give the example with birdfeeder blocking etc. these open new strategies. It would be good to have guru at least voting be open for a wider range, and i feel like changing the modes like 3p-2p-3p-2p or 2-2-2-3 out of the 4 a year would be nice depending on the game. Ultimately, its always the point that games are more balanced at 2, which is true regarding the interaction with the 3rd player, but without prior knowledge of the game designers testing, we will not no for any game with these card style things what the cards are balanced for (also what playtesters)

for example in this game birds have a cost and ability and point value (and type and size), lets take the pink cards, for having the birds being roughly balanced how many uses of pink abilites are assumed, and at which player count is this likely (so could well be pink cards are underpointed for 2 player (for example 2 uses less 2pts more for 2 player style). As you will draw from deck and you might unluckily draw more pink cards increasing luck and adjusting luck decreases balance, similar as a 3rd player might do.

with sufficiently many games either one cancels out, so the biggest argument for 2player is speed

[Jontia]

We have experimented with the 3-player model for a long enough time and I think it is now time to revert to the 2-player model given all the drawbacks of the 3-player model. The stats back it up, since the change from 2-player to 3-player arena, people have played significantly less arena games (even when you take into consideration the longer duration of the 3-player games). I don't know if it's even possible, but why not try out 2 seperate arena modes with a 2-player and a 3-player model? Then the people who want faster and more balanced games can play 2-player games, and the ones who enjoy cleaning the dishes or vacuuming during their active 3-player game, are also satisfied.

Guru engagement is pretty low. In the most active arena votes that I have had access to getting 20 votes for the season settings is considered extremely high, and single vote can make all the difference. All I can suggest is play more games. Get yourself guru status and have the influence there.

Seeing as you like two player games, if you skip arena for a season and focus on playing 2-player games you should finish a lot more games in the same time period as someone playing arena games. Giving you a better shot of making guru status.

But I don't think you'll get anywhere asking for it in the forums, in the same way the C&K players or even 4-player catan people don't get anywhere in the Catan forums. At least, unlike those people, the game format you want is shorter than the arena default, upping your chances of getting influence.

Personally, I like 3-player games and this insulting dismissiveness of them as good for those 'who like vaccuuming' isn't likely to win friends or influence people among any gurus (who on average currently vote for 3-players) who may happen to come along. If you just want to race through games as fast as possible, just go push your ELO in simple games.

[kitwin]

I seriously wonder if this is just an attempt by BGA to take strain off their servers. The number of games fell off a cliff last season, and decreased further this season.

Outside of the gurus, the overall engagement of the player base is definitely saying something. I support the idea of switching it back and I'm hoping there's at least a chance for that next season. I'm definitely missing the regular Arena games for Wingspan.

[FrankJones]

In my opinion, the OP and other have made a compelling case for switching arena back to 2-player.

I don't think the "vacuuming and doing dishes" comment was intended as any sort of insult, but rather, a facetious reference to the fact that people disappear during opponents' turns for some unknown reason, causing the game to drag excessively.

3-player turn based games can make a game take a LOT longer, especially turn-based.

[Jontia]

I seriously wonder if this is just an attempt by BGA to take strain off their servers.

Zero evidence, conspiracy theory nonsense.

----

And just in case anyone feels like saying "well you have no evidence either", I will point to my personal pet peeve of Catan.
By any metric 3-player catan is worse. Geniune world tournements exist that run at 4 player and BGA has Best at 4 player by a wide margin.

And yet the arena setting are for 3 players and regularly set up with choices that make the game go faster. The current settings have "Random numbers" a form of tile set up that can lead to ludicrously over powered first choice positions. Friendly Robber, a setting that allows for early leaders to run away with the game by avoiding placing settlements and effectively removing the 'catch up mechanic'. While it's not on currently "Easy start" is a frequent choice for the arena, a setting that prevent the robber being rolled in the early game.

All of these options are not only anti-competitive, they also make the game go faster. Catan Arena has 180k games. Way above the 90k Wingspan current and on-par with the 220k Wingspan from season 21 (which I think was 2-player). Any valid reason to "reduce load" would not be limited to Wingspan, and it would certainly be applied to Catan too, if not for it's simple scale, but because 3-player Catan is clearly not the right 'competitive' setting.

So... No. BGA are not spiking the arena format because they want to reduce load. The settings are set to what those people who play the most AND can be bothered to engage with the guru content want to play.

The only solution if you don't like it is to play more games, remember you have every advantage for taking that guru spot because your favoured setting takes less time to play.

[kitwin]

I seriously wonder if this is just an attempt by BGA to take strain off their servers.

Zero evidence, conspiracy theory nonsense.

Look, I'll grant I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here, but there IS evidence of at least the decrease in WINGSPAN games. You can actually look that number up publicly. Whatever their goals may have been (I mean, I have no idea who these gurus are, but I find it odd that the most competitive people on the server seem to disagree with them), the EFFECT of this change is that fewer games are being played. This is - provably - evident.

But I'll grant a little "conspiracy theory nonsense" thrown in . Just watching the popularity of the format dropping it does make one wonder why BGA is letting "the gurus" run one of their most popular games into the ground, and wondering if (legitimately) a lessening of games is to their temporary advantage when the servers did seem to be riding the struggle bus for a while, and seemingly less so now.

Obviously Catan needs at least 3. That's a very strange thing to bring up in this context.

[Jontia]

Whatever their goals may have been (I mean, I have no idea who these gurus are, but I find it odd that the most competitive people on the server seem to disagree with them), the EFFECT of this change is that fewer games are being played. This is - provably - evident.

...

Obviously Catan needs at least 3. That's a very strange thing to bring up in this context.

Yeah sorry. Totally went off on one.
Absolutely I can see that there are less games played in Wingspan arena a drop from around 200k, to 90k when the format changes.
But this doesn't mean less engagement with the game. As has been pointed out, 3-player games need more time to play, as well as more players.

I don't have hard numbers, because I'm just one guy. And this probably isn't the best data because I'm almost exclusively turn-based, not real-time games. So feel free to share your own real-time data if you have it.

But a quick look at the point where Wingspan changes from 2 to 3 player arena shows my time per-game jumping from between 4,000-12,000 min to 10,000 - 22,000. And these are then 3player games. So using a time * player / 1000 "Engagement Points" metic at the mid-point. Engagement goes from 16 EPs to 48 EPs!

So just looking at the number of games doesn't really tell you anything, any more than my made up EP metric is really telling us anything useful. You need more an better data draw real conclusions.

[kitwin]

Or just use the fact that there are 3 people playing 3-player games and 2 people playing 2 player games?

So 200K 2-player games is 400K total player engagements with the game, and 90K 3-player games is 270K total player engagements with the game.

I don't understand why you think this math is so complex. Engagement is down (roughly) 33% in a pro-rated way last season, and even a bit more this season. That's pretty devastating. In terms of the number of times a player has chosen to queue for an Arena game and play it - which is the only stat that really matters here - the population seems to have pretty unambiguously voted with their relative apathy.

I guess I hope the gurus take that into account.

[Jontia]

Or just use the fact that there are 3 people playing 3-player games and 2 people playing 2 player games?

So 200K 2-player games is 400K total player engagements with the game, and 90K 3-player games is 270K total player engagements with the game.

I don't understand why you think this math is so complex. Engagement is down (roughly) 33% in a pro-rated way last season, and even a bit more this season. That's pretty devastating. In terms of the number of times a player has chosen to queue for an Arena game and play it - which is the only stat that really matters here - the population seems to have pretty unambiguously voted with their relative apathy.

I guess I hope the gurus take that into account.

You're not taking into account that 3 player games take longer to play. So the three players are all in game for longer. Their total time playing games on BGA can be therefore up even with less games.

Wingspan doesn't have a time per player on the box, but it does say 40-70 mins for a 2-5 player came. This might be read as 20mins + 10 per player. But you need actual data to prove that. (40 mins at 2 and 50 mins at 3)

So engagement on that basis is 80 player mins per game for 2 players, but 150 player mins for 3 players.

So halving the number of games still has an increased time for all players spent playing the games. That is a measure of engagement too. True it might be time some people don't like, waiting for their turn and feeling like they are doing nothing, but they are still sat there playing the game.

Main problem here is the time for games is almost certainly wrong. Online games go faster than real-life because you don't have to physically move the pieces, calculate the score and so on.