Changes to arena game options

[Jellby]

There is rampant speculation that the process tends to favor 2p Arena: players who play mostly 2p will have shorter games, and can rack up more games in a season, and are therefore more likely to be gurus. And gurus who play mostly 2p may be more likely to choose 2p for Arena. But it’s hardly a conspiracy.

Besides that, there's also the simple fact that it's easier to get 2p tables starting (and ending) than 3p, 4p, etc. No matter how much better the 5p version is, if it takes one week just to find 5 players and two months to finish a game... it won't be very popular, and many people will think it's not the best for Arena.

[tbhp]

For me personally, this Season is going to show my lowest play count in over 2 years of being here. Why did they make practically every game 2 players? Ticket to Ride, 7 Wonders Architects, Love Letter, Sushi Go, Gizmos, Azul, Wingspan, etc. So many great games but terrible at 2 players. Most should be a minimum of 3 players. There's a few that are 4+ but it's not easy to get into those games since they're not the most popular ones like Stella, For Sale, etc.

I started playing Stella recently and I find it very easy to get new Arena games going.

Your experience may be different if you are a Premium member and you are used to be able to launch games like that, but for me it was a surprise to see how quickly it finds players. There's times when it might take half a day, but often times it only takes a couple of hours at most.

Because 2 player is usually where the greatest skill is required, reducing random variation that cripples player choice and giving players a proper chance to interact with their opponent on more even footing. The main exceptions to justify going above 2-player are when you're basically playing multiplayer solitaire and don't actually care about the other players or if the game is going all in on player politics, often at the price of technical skill.

I have seen people make that argument for the games I play, but I tend to disagree personally. I find that multiplayer games tend to reward more the players who plan things out better. While they may add an element randomness, they also have an added complexity that gives the better players an upper hand compared to if it was a simple one on one match up.

Of course, this depends on the specifics of each game. But it seems to be the case for the ones I play. I also see that my win ratio seems more favorable when I'm playing multiplayer. For example, say you win 50% of your 2 player games (those are not the actual numbers but to give an easy example), but at the same time you notice you win more than 25% of your 4 player games, then it suggests the higher player count is rewarding your skills more.

[Ceaseless]

It doesn't matter if you think a game is balanced or not. The game exists, the creators made it with the rules they chose, and now it can be played competitively on BGA just like any other game. If you don't like the way the game works, you can choose not to play it or criticize it, but that doesn't give you the right to request that it be changed into a different game.

Removing an expansion from the Arena format? That sounds like something the guru vote was made for, assuming the game exists without the expansion, which is usually the case.

Because 2 player is usually where the greatest skill is required, reducing random variation that cripples player choice and giving players a proper chance to interact with their opponent on more even footing. The main exceptions to justify going above 2-player are when you're basically playing multiplayer solitaire and don't actually care about the other players or if the game is going all in on player politics, often at the price of technical skill.

I have seen people make that argument for the games I play, but I tend to disagree personally. I find that multiplayer games tend to reward more the players who plan things out better. While they may add an element randomness, they also have an added complexity that gives the better players an upper hand compared to if it was a simple one on one match up.

Of course, this depends on the specifics of each game. But it seems to be the case for the ones I play. I also see that my win ratio seems more favorable when I'm playing multiplayer. For example, say you win 50% of your 2 player games (those are not the actual numbers but to give an easy example), but at the same time you notice you win more than 25% of your 4 player games, then it suggests the higher player count is rewarding your skills more.

Alternatively, your opponents are just worse, which would be unsurprising. On average I would expect the players playing in 2-player games to be better than the ones playing in 2+ player. It's a self-supporting cycle, the better players would often prefer the game with higher skill, and playing 2 player helps reinforce those skills. Win rate is not the perk players think it is, it usually says more about how bad your pairings are than how good you are. One of my standard examples is when someone brags about being undefeated in a game, thinking it means they're really good at it, when in reality the fact they haven't faced someone that beat them implies they're very weak.

It also rewards a different set of advantage than skills, such as having a friend playing to help you, or players ganging up on a player they're concerned about, such as the highest rated player, someone they simply don't like, or more charitably a tactical consideration to handle whoever was taking the lead before. You have to make weaker moves to minimize the chances of detection since player politics trumps technical skill. The reason for that is straightforward, in 2 player you control roughly 50% of the resources, so if you use yours better, then you can overcome the 50% influence of your opponent. In 4 player you only have about 25% and stand little chance at overturning the 75% of your opponents. Your choices matter less than theirs, and that goes for everyone. The winner is decided more by who is hit least by the player dynamics than who played the best choices. To give an example in 3 player ticket to ride, if 2 players are based handling southern tickets, and 1 is based in the north, the northern player has an easy win as the southern players are set to tear each other apart through no fault of their own.

As a result, even if you were the best player in the game and made perfect plays, if the other players realize they have to beat you to stand a stand, they can crush you just about every time. You have to find a way to trick them into thinking you're not a problem again, which at a certain point requires that they're just idiots. It's one thing to not know in blind player selection games or short-term interaction, but after a while it becomes clear. It becomes more about manipulating people outside of the game than it does with how you play at that point.

[tbhp]

Alternatively, your opponents are just worse, which would be unsurprising. On average I would expect the players playing in 2-player games to be better than the ones playing in 2+ player. It's a self-supporting cycle, the better players would often prefer the game with higher skill, and playing 2 player helps reinforce those skills.

That's not how multiplayer seems to be considered in my most two played games.

The multiplayer games I play there are prestigious tournaments that the best players compete in and try to win, so I don't see this notion that better players are avoiding multiplayer. Yes, some people believe it is more luck based, but that doesn't translate to the scene being any less competitive.

In my opinion finding a mode more luck based would be a weird reason to take the games in question less seriously and be less competitive in them. That would be like saying that you take football less seriously than rugby because its results are more random. I don't see the sense in that. A game being more uncertain doesn't take anything away from the skill required to play it and how much a player would invest themselves in it.

Coincidentally, the two games in question both have an expansion/mode that is distinct from the base game and introduces more luck. Yet people love those and are extremely competitive in them. So, yeah, your idea seems new to me.

It also rewards a different set of advantage than skills, such as having a friend playing to help you, or players ganging up on a player they're concerned about, such as the highest rated player, someone they simply don't like, or more charitably a tactical consideration to handle whoever was taking the lead before. You have to make weaker moves to minimize the chances of detection since player politics trumps technical skill. The reason for that is straightforward, in 2 player you control roughly 50% of the resources, so if you use yours better, then you can overcome the 50% influence of your opponent. In 4 player you only have about 25% and stand little chance at overturning the 75% of your opponents. Your choices matter less than theirs, and that goes for everyone. The winner is decided more by who is hit least by the player dynamics than who played the best choices. To give an example in 3 player ticket to ride, if 2 players are based handling southern tickets, and 1 is based in the north, the northern player has an easy win as the southern players are set to tear each other apart through no fault of their own.

As a result, even if you were the best player in the game and made perfect plays, if the other players realize they have to beat you to stand a stand, they can crush you just about every time. You have to find a way to trick them into thinking you're not a problem again, which at a certain point requires that they're just idiots. It's one thing to not know in blind player selection games or short-term interaction, but after a while it becomes clear. It becomes more about manipulating people outside of the game than it does with how you play at that point.

That makes sense, but depending on how many players qualify and the specifics of the particular game, it's often not advantageous to target a specific player. You're better off focusing on your own game.

Yes, there are situations where you have to do something against a particular player, but that's more something that is equally likely to happen across all players, rather than because the other players see one player has a high Elo and decide to target them. I don't think I've ever seen something like that happen in my games. And this is also in large part because it's generally just not feasible to ruin a top player's game like that. Despite involving a lot of randomness, those two games seem well balanced in that if you think hard enough, you will generally always find options to construct a high scoring board, no matter what your opponents try to do to you. So it really comes down to how well you play and skill prevails in the end. And because the multiplayer mode adds more complexity, this just gives the top players more tools at their disposal to outplay the other players (including the ones that have to do with countering your opponents, the lower rated players tend to be much less skilled at that too).

It's possible that your experience is based on playing games where multiplayer modes introduce this possibility for a bunch of players to really team up against a specific player. That's a design flaw in my opinion. Luckily the games I play don't really allow to do that.

[Ceaseless]

Alternatively, your opponents are just worse, which would be unsurprising. On average I would expect the players playing in 2-player games to be better than the ones playing in 2+ player. It's a self-supporting cycle, the better players would often prefer the game with higher skill, and playing 2 player helps reinforce those skills.

That's not how multiplayer seems to be considered in my most two played games.

The multiplayer games I play there are prestigious tournaments that the best players compete in and try to win, so I don't see this notion that better players are avoiding multiplayer. Yes, some people believe it is more luck based, but that doesn't translate to the scene being any less competitive.

In my opinion finding a mode more luck based would be a weird reason to take the games in question less seriously and be less competitive in them. That would be like saying that you take football less seriously than rugby because its results are more random. I don't see the sense in that. A game being more uncertain doesn't take anything away from the skill required to play it and how much a player would invest themselves in it.

Coincidentally, the two games in question both have an expansion/mode that is distinct from the base game and introduces more luck. Yet people love those and are extremely competitive in them. So, yeah, your idea seems new to me.

It also rewards a different set of advantage than skills, such as having a friend playing to help you, or players ganging up on a player they're concerned about, such as the highest rated player, someone they simply don't like, or more charitably a tactical consideration to handle whoever was taking the lead before. You have to make weaker moves to minimize the chances of detection since player politics trumps technical skill. The reason for that is straightforward, in 2 player you control roughly 50% of the resources, so if you use yours better, then you can overcome the 50% influence of your opponent. In 4 player you only have about 25% and stand little chance at overturning the 75% of your opponents. Your choices matter less than theirs, and that goes for everyone. The winner is decided more by who is hit least by the player dynamics than who played the best choices. To give an example in 3 player ticket to ride, if 2 players are based handling southern tickets, and 1 is based in the north, the northern player has an easy win as the southern players are set to tear each other apart through no fault of their own.

As a result, even if you were the best player in the game and made perfect plays, if the other players realize they have to beat you to stand a stand, they can crush you just about every time. You have to find a way to trick them into thinking you're not a problem again, which at a certain point requires that they're just idiots. It's one thing to not know in blind player selection games or short-term interaction, but after a while it becomes clear. It becomes more about manipulating people outside of the game than it does with how you play at that point.

That makes sense, but depending on how many players qualify and the specifics of the particular game, it's often not advantageous to target a specific player. You're better off focusing on your own game.

Yes, there are situations where you have to do something against a particular player, but that's more something that is equally likely to happen across all players, rather than because the other players see one player has a high Elo and decide to target them. I don't think I've ever seen something like that happen in my games. And this is also in large part because it's generally just not feasible to ruin a top player's game like that. Despite involving a lot of randomness, those two games seem well balanced in that if you think hard enough, you will generally always find options to construct a high scoring board, no matter what your opponents try to do to you. So it really comes down to how well you play and skill prevails in the end. And because the multiplayer mode adds more complexity, this just gives the top players more tools at their disposal to outplay the other players (including the ones that have to do with countering your opponents, the lower rated players tend to be much less skilled at that too).

It's possible that your experience is based on playing games where multiplayer modes introduce this possibility for a bunch of players to really team up against a specific player. That's a design flaw in my opinion. Luckily the games I play don't really allow to do that.

I don't know what your two 2+ player games are, you haven't even mentioned if they're on BGA. I can't speak for whether those unknown games fall under the umbrella of what I already mentioned or not.

You talk about whether it makes sense for one player to target another, and there's a discussion to be had about it, but there's a larger issue that would have to be addressed first. Players don't always make good moves. In 2-player, this isn't as much of an issue, if a player makes bad moves, it worsens their odds and improves their opponent's. So a player is paying for their own bad decisions. But in 2+ players, it can have a backlash on players that had no say in the decision. So if you're the best player and someone else targets you when it's better for them not to, that's still too bad for you. They are worse off, you're worse off, and other players benefit for free. You'd need to be playing a game with very low to nonexistent player interaction to sidestep those sorts of issues.

As for what you are and aren't familiar with, what you don't know doesn't change how things are for those games. You may be familiar with those principles, but they still remain, and they serve as a strong backbone for the dominance of 2 player in so many games mentioned by the OP. The same goes for your opinions. You may not see a reason to view something a certain way, but that doesn't mean other people will agree with you. Even if one player thought 4 player was the way to play a certain game, the dominance of 2 player isn't going to be swayed by that.

[FrankJones]

I have been mostly following this thread-

So, something to keep in mind - a person can become a guru in a game without playing any arena. And then can vote out the undesirable expansion, though it's still only one vote.

I dislike preludes in Terraforming Mars, but I am probably 1 out of 100 who feels that way, so I have to accept that I won't be playing Arena unless I want to play with preludes. Which I do not. Shrug. No big deal; I only play 2 of my 15 games in the arena.

And, yes, there is some inertia involved in Arena settings from one season to the next. What is, likely will remain as is, for the reasons discussed in this thread.

I am Elo focused, so reaching a high Elo in a game is meaningful to me even if I never participate in Arena. I can see that for a lot of people, attaining a high arena score is more meaningful, and that's a perfectly valid outlook. And thus, I understand how it would be frustrating to be unable to play arena because of undesirable expansions or player count or both.

For Wingspan for example, I dislike competitive play at any player count other than 2-player. Wingspan, among other games, has the potential for blatant targeting and kingmaking in 3-player games. And I do not want to put myself in that position. Casual games at my dining table? Sure, the more the merrier. Wingspan with 5 players and all expansions and cards.

Notably, hearts seems to have blatant cheating occurring where two players basically team up, and the high arena scorer either wins because it's basically 2 people playing together to benefit the one player, or, if that fails, the low-scoring teammate just runs out of tie and gets expelled, nullifying what would have been a poor result for the high-scoring arena player. That's problematic on many levels, not the least of which is a low-200s Elo player being in the top spot for arena.

[tbhp]

I don't know what your two 2+ player games are, you haven't even mentioned if they're on BGA. I can't speak for whether those unknown games fall under the umbrella of what I already mentioned or not.

They are certainly on BGA and quite popular at that.

It's possible that the games mentioned earlier in this thread work quite differently, and as such don't really work for competitive multiplayer. That could explain why the gurus avoid it (although the person who was complaining seemed to think that those games are more interesting with more players).

Still, even for the two games I was talking about, they have always been set at 2 players for Arena, despite multiplayer being perfectly adapted to competitive play for those games, so there seems to be other reasons why gurus seem biased towards 2 players.

You talk about whether it makes sense for one player to target another, and there's a discussion to be had about it, but there's a larger issue that would have to be addressed first. Players don't always make good moves. In 2-player, this isn't as much of an issue, if a player makes bad moves, it worsens their odds and improves their opponent's. So a player is paying for their own bad decisions. But in 2+ players, it can have a backlash on players that had no say in the decision.

That's certainly something that's happened to me a few times, but it's extremely rare that the consequences have been so bad that they lead me to get eliminated, if ever. Also, when you base your moves on what you think others will do, it's always good to have all alternatives in mind to make sure that even if they make some random move, you'll still have a way to recover from it. Not always possible to do, but overall this issue has been so minor for me that I don't think it compensates for all the ways in which multiplayer seems to be less luck based to me.