Board Game Arena

The 2 player preference of Arena players is one of the weaknesses on BGA, the reason for this is well explained by Jontia above. Like many games I prefer to play TTR what it is designed for and that is normally better reflected on BGG, which says 4 player games is most popular for TTR. It's just for strategic (minimizing risks) and speed reasons that guru's vote different. I assume the top ELO players also don't play multiplayer because they loose to much ELO if they finish 2nd out of 4 players, this could be a weakness of the ELO ranking as well. I just don't focus on it too much and play the multiplayer games I like in stead of focussing on ELO / Arena rank.

I always encourage players to set up their own tournaments with multiple players as soon as they have an idea of the time needed per player (for casual players it's about a week for this game).

koningco wrote: ↑18 October 2026, 20:24 The 2 player preference of Arena players is one of the weaknesses on BGA, the reason for this is well explained by Jontia above. Like many games I prefer to play TTR what it is designed for and that is normally better reflected on BGG, which says 4 player games is most popular for TTR. It's just for strategic (minimizing risks) and speed reasons that guru's vote different. I assume the top ELO players also don't play multiplayer because they loose to much ELO if they finish 2nd out of 4 players, this could be a weakness of the ELO ranking as well. I just don't focus on it too much and play the multiplayer games I like in stead of focussing on ELO / Arena rank.

I always encourage players to set up their own tournaments with multiple players as soon as they have an idea of the time needed per player (for casual players it's about a week for this game).

Game quality plays a factor. Players like to know their decisions matter, and that's something 2 player dominates at over 4 player. If you play better in 2 player, you'll win more often than not because you made better plays than the other player. In 4 player, players can team up on, and it doesn't even have to be intentional, that can just be how the board plays out, and as one player of many you can't really get out of that. You just don't have the same influence as 1 player of 4 that you have as 1 player of 2.

It probably helps that the BGA vote is by real players active in the system. Many of them will end up playing in the Arena format the vote sets, (or rejecting Arena if the vote does a particularly unpleasant direction to them). In other words, those players put their money where their mouth is. As far as I'm aware, BGG votes are not tied to such things. Their vote and its outcome do not affect them in any way, nor are there such standards for them to have a vote in the first place.

koningco wrote: ↑18 October 2026, 20:24 The 2 player preference of Arena players is one of the weaknesses on BGA, the reason for this is well explained by Jontia above. Like many games I prefer to play TTR what it is designed for and that is normally better reflected on BGG, which says 4 player games is most popular for TTR. It's just for strategic (minimizing risks) and speed reasons that guru's vote different. I assume the top ELO players also don't play multiplayer because they loose to much ELO if they finish 2nd out of 4 players, this could be a weakness of the ELO ranking as well. I just don't focus on it too much and play the multiplayer games I like in stead of focussing on ELO / Arena rank.

I always encourage players to set up their own tournaments with multiple players as soon as they have an idea of the time needed per player (for casual players it's about a week for this game).

The one upside is a game like TTR is so big that you aren't forced to play Arena to get games, you will easily get a 4 player game outside Arena if that's how you want to play, and it would be my preferred way to play TTR too, but I'm not a competitive TTR player. Indeed another point shows this clearer, the fact that 1910 is turned off, you will struggle to meet anyone outside competitive play who doesn't think the game is better with 1910, but it adds more variance because tickets are more important, and thus it's often shunned at top level competitive play, because it's harder to control all the variables than the typical competitive 2 player TTR line which is extremely cutthroat and is primarily about the long routes. So I understand why it gets voted the way it does, as the competitive players simply want to win, but it would also be why I'd have no interest in competitive TTR as it makes the game extremely repetitive.

RazorOz wrote: ↑18 October 2026, 23:10

koningco wrote: ↑18 October 2026, 20:24 The 2 player preference of Arena players is one of the weaknesses on BGA, the reason for this is well explained by Jontia above. Like many games I prefer to play TTR what it is designed for and that is normally better reflected on BGG, which says 4 player games is most popular for TTR. It's just for strategic (minimizing risks) and speed reasons that guru's vote different. I assume the top ELO players also don't play multiplayer because they loose to much ELO if they finish 2nd out of 4 players, this could be a weakness of the ELO ranking as well. I just don't focus on it too much and play the multiplayer games I like in stead of focussing on ELO / Arena rank.

I always encourage players to set up their own tournaments with multiple players as soon as they have an idea of the time needed per player (for casual players it's about a week for this game).

The one upside is a game like TTR is so big that you aren't forced to play Arena to get games, you will easily get a 4 player game outside Arena if that's how you want to play, and it would be my preferred way to play TTR too, but I'm not a competitive TTR player. Indeed another point shows this clearer, the fact that 1910 is turned off, you will struggle to meet anyone outside competitive play who doesn't think the game is better with 1910, but it adds more variance because tickets are more important, and thus it's often shunned at top level competitive play, because it's harder to control all the variables than the typical competitive 2 player TTR line which is extremely cutthroat and is primarily about the long routes. So I understand why it gets voted the way it does, as the competitive players simply want to win, but it would also be why I'd have no interest in competitive TTR as it makes the game extremely repetitive.

While a look at recent games gives a pretty comfortable feeling 2 player easily outnumbers every other player count combined, the time gaps between over 2 player games, despite being the minority of Ticket to Ride games, looks more than comfortable enough to find a game relative to many games on BGA in general and matches up with RazorOz's assessment of the low difficulty in getting a game.