Game settings that would make Terraforming Mars on BGA more fun

[FrankJones]

There is zero excuse for the hilariously bad Arena matchmaking. Even if they want to use arena for matchmaking, then they could use arena rating instead of just arena tiers. Or they could make it so players can drop in arena tiers, instead of just hitting Elite once and then never going back down, despite dropping to 100 Elo.

It is also laughably bad in Ark Nova, which is another game with a very active Arena mode.

This is a very good point. Instead of "I prefer to play within +/- x tiers", it should be "I prefer to play within +/- y Arena points."

[jalapeenor]

This game is unplayable with players who 1-action 100% of the time, so agreed on that one.

[FrankJones]

This game is unplayable with players who 1-action 100% of the time, so agreed on that one.

I wish I understood why people say this. In my experience, the game moves along just fine. Maybe that's because I play only 2-player.

I recall a game in which my opponent made a somewhat annoyed remark about the pace of my play. When the game ended and the end-game stats showed, I had used half as much clock despite doing 50% more actions.

[jalapeenor]

This game is unplayable with players who 1-action 100% of the time, so agreed on that one.

I wish I understood why people say this. In my experience, the game moves along just fine. Maybe that's because I play only 2-player.

I recall a game in which my opponent made a somewhat annoyed remark about the pace of my play. When the game ended and the end-game stats showed, I had used half as much clock despite doing 50% more actions.

Am I understanding correctly that your opponent didn't either understand or want to 1-action after you did?
In any case, the only benefit you gain from exclusively 1-actioning is that you force your opponent to do the same, and once you do, that advantage is gone, and now you've added additional layer of complexity by who can stall the most, and the games do take longer for no strategic benefit. Want to stall so you get some card online with one actioning? What do you think your opponent is doing? Sometimes it's worth doing, not 100% of the time. Even if it's only for time.

[FrankJones]

This game is unplayable with players who 1-action 100% of the time, so agreed on that one.

I wish I understood why people say this. In my experience, the game moves along just fine. Maybe that's because I play only 2-player.

I recall a game in which my opponent made a somewhat annoyed remark about the pace of my play. When the game ended and the end-game stats showed, I had used half as much clock despite doing 50% more actions.

Am I understanding correctly that your opponent didn't either understand or want to 1-action after you did?
In any case, the only benefit you gain from exclusively 1-actioning is that you force your opponent to do the same, and once you do, that advantage is gone, and now you've added additional layer of complexity by who can stall the most, and the games do take longer for no strategic benefit. Want to stall so you get some card online with one actioning? What do you think your opponent is doing? Sometimes it's worth doing, not 100% of the time. Even if it's only for time.

I have never entered into any conversation within a game about this subject. I have no desire to make any demands of my opponent regarding how to play his turns. It bothers me not in the least if someone takes on action and ends turn.

I view it as "take a second action only when necessary", not "only do a single action rarely and for some really important reason."

I don't single action every time. I probably do it 50% of the time. Maybe less; I don't know.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that "it make no difference because either both players will do 2 or both players will do 1." There are many reasons to perform 2 actions: Protecting plants by converting into a greenery, grabbing a track bonus, grabbing a milestone, producing and using energy when tapping or consortium is out there... etc. So, if players are just allowed to take 1 or 2 actions as they see appropriate, one player might be in a position with no use for 2-action turns while the opponent needs to in order to protect resources as described above.

In that situation, why should the player who gains no benefit from 2-action turns have to take 2-actions while the other player actually benefits from doing so?

The ongoing fuss and angst about this is topic one reason I have lost some enthusiasm for the game. That, coupled with the fact that when I have expressed this opinion in the past, I have been derided as some sort of doofus who just isn't smart enough or good enough to comprehend the grand wisdom behind this mandatory 2-action business.

I play fast. Whether I'm taking one action or 2, I'm not dragging the game. If the "other" famous version accomplished nothing else, it certainly ingrained in us the importance of playing FAST, else we world forfeit while watching animations of our own turns and our opponent's turns.

Anyway, discussing this topic is mostly a waste of time. It's not a change that has any likelihood of being implemented. And whatever gentlemanly agreement 2 players within a game want to agree to - hey, I have no objection; doesn't involve or affect me at all.


If I had to guess, I would guess that Venus Next would be next on the list of major changes. (This is just a guess; I have no idea what the future of TFM is here on BGA.)

[ropelo]

Venus next pleaseeee

[MattiaDixon]

Totally agree with #1
I played once the Italian TM Finals and it was forbidden to only take one action per turn, it might stall the game too much if people abuse it