No one wants to play Peaceable mode?

[MrMister]

As a great example of some things that need to change - there is a game right now thats 1v1 and its "First Game" non-peaceable.

The ELO for the player starting the game is 369. That shouldn't be allowed, period. People are artificially increasing their ELO because they are going to catch an unsuspected new player who doesn't know any better. Thats bad for new players and bad for BGA long term. You could potentially not have the player ever come back after getting stomped by someone who has played for a lot lot longer and knows what to do.

Is there a place to offer changes or suggestions?

[FrankJones]

As a great example of some things that need to change - there is a game right now thats 1v1 and its "First Game" non-peaceable.

The ELO for the player starting the game is 369. That shouldn't be allowed, period. People are artificially increasing their ELO because they are going to catch an unsuspected new player who doesn't know any better. Thats bad for new players and bad for BGA long term. You could potentially not have the player ever come back after getting stomped by someone who has played for a lot lot longer and knows what to do.

Is there a place to offer changes or suggestions?

I don't understand. Why is a new player playing against a 369 Elo?

Also, the experienced player at 369 Elo will gain 2 Elo. That's hardly an artificial increase. And, if the "new player" actually knows how to play the game, then the experienced player could easily lose 18 Elo.

What change or suggestion do we need?

Filters exist to screen out all players at or above 100 Elo. What's the issue? Some new players don't care about using the filters. That's their choice.

[I already explained this one page 1 and you said ,"Good to know, thanks." Did you forget already? ]

[MrMister]

As a great example of some things that need to change - there is a game right now thats 1v1 and its "First Game" non-peaceable.

The ELO for the player starting the game is 369. That shouldn't be allowed, period. People are artificially increasing their ELO because they are going to catch an unsuspected new player who doesn't know any better. Thats bad for new players and bad for BGA long term. You could potentially not have the player ever come back after getting stomped by someone who has played for a lot lot longer and knows what to do.

Is there a place to offer changes or suggestions?

I don't understand. Why is a new player playing against a 369 Elo?

Also, the experienced player at 369 Elo will gain 2 Elo. That's hardly an artificial increase. And, if the "new player" actually knows how to play the game, then the experienced player could easily lose 18 Elo.

What change or suggestion do we need?

Filters exist to screen out all players at or above 100 Elo. What's the issue? Some new players don't care about using the filters. That's their choice.

[I already explained this one page 1 and you said ,"Good to know, thanks." Did you forget already? ]

I didn't forget. I was trying to figure out why a player with that high of an ELO is starting a game as a "first game". That doesn't make sense to me.

[FrankJones]

I don't understand what you mean. A player does not get to "choose" whether it's his or her first game. The site interface does that automatically for a player's first game.

[kevinsbane]

I don't understand what you mean. A player does not get to "choose" whether it's his or her first game. The site interface does that automatically for a player's first game.

"First game" is a game option that uses map A.

[FrankJones]

I don't understand what you mean. A player does not get to "choose" whether it's his or her first game. The site interface does that automatically for a player's first game.

"First game" is a game option that uses map A.

And someone can choose that map even at 350 Elo? No, right? Not if the game creator chooses "random map" and "all players use same map" ?

[kevinsbane]

I don't understand what you mean. A player does not get to "choose" whether it's his or her first game. The site interface does that automatically for a player's first game.

"First game" is a game option that uses map A.

And someone can choose that map even at 350 Elo? No, right? Not if the game creator chooses "random map" and "all players use same map" ?

It's not a map option, it's a separate option that automatically picks map A. Random map doesn't allow for maps A/0. "First game" option doesn't lock out anyone from choosing it.

[FrankJones]

Oh, true.

[Suoivax]

maybe the 300+ELO player just likes chilled out, less complex games of Ark Nova. Maps A/0 are a laid back, low stress maps for people who know the game.

I've played those maps with my physical copy plenty of times.

[BlueSwan]

There are two reasons people prefer non-peacefull mode. ( Which most consider the variant between the two options)

1: The cards that target players with negative effects are a way to balance the game. They can only be used against the player with the most points ( appeal or CP). Its a way for the others players to catch up, and something the player in the lead has to take into account.
(Wether this person is actually in the lead is another question.)

2: Some of the peacefull option are very OP, like the two snakes. In non-peacefull they can steal opponents action, but only when they are ahead and only up to strenght 3. In peacefull they simply give you determination ( extra action) for a very low cost compared to the Eagles.

Arena always being 2 player is because it removes a bit of randomness. No kingmaking etc.
1 on 1 makes the tempo of the game a much bigger aspect and something you really need to focus on.
In 3 of 4 player game you have much less impact on the speed of the game.

My problems with this mechanism, is that if someone is 1 appeal ahead of everyone else and/or 1 CP then they are technically in the "lead" but not dominating or anything like that. Its basically tied. I feel like "ahead in appeal and/or CP" needs to be defined by more than 1. Maybe a certain threshold lead would have been a better choice in the design and only after a certain number of breaks. That's pretty bad that you can do a hypnosis on someone on the first round. I feel like that's a miss on the designers part.

As far as 1v1, I guess I frown upon it a bit more because I experienced losing badly in Terraforming Mars by someone getting all the good "blue" cards and if there were more people in the game, those cards are more spread out and there's more balance(potentially) and thus you have to strategize a bit more. I know that game doesn't have as many cards nor are they that diverse as Ark Nova but potentially you could have 1 person get both rhinos for base projects and draw up the other CP projects and the other person gets leftovers. Then its more about sheer luck than skill.. and arena is supposed to be about skill... so thats where I was going with my thoughts.

As a side note - I see people starting games as their "First Game" when if you look at their profile, theyve played 20. I feel like you shouldnt be able to start a first game in that game. Also, if you are starting your first game or beginner - you shoujld be able to customize it so someone with a 300 ELO cant join your game. Thats not a good game experience.

There's a huge amount of skill to this game and that only increases in 1v1, since you have a lot more control in 1v1 than in multiplayer. Look at the rankings, it wouldn't be possible to get to 900 ELO if skill wasn't super important.

Also, beginners tend to make inferences about this game that in time they realize are just wrong. I've seen it so many times. Sure, there is a bunch of luck in this game, but the game is filled with a constant barrage of important decisions where skill is super important.

I'm a 600 ELO player. I will beat a beginner or intermediate player in 1v1 virtually every time regardless of card draw, but likewise I will lose to a 900 ELO player almost every time as well, even though I have played the game more than 1000 times.