Board Game Arena

tbhp wrote: ↑15 October 2026, 19:47

Ceaseless wrote: ↑15 October 2026, 19:36 I think my profile would be considered reasonably competitive to a lot of players without needing Arena games to do it for starters.

I think most people would agree someone with those Elo trophies is a top player, it's just that I've never run into someone who is a top player, plays a lot of games, and also doesn't play most of those games in competitive contexts.

Maybe it depends on the culture of the game. In a game like Harmonies, everyone seems to be invested in Arena or tournaments. Maybe it's just more the type of game for those things, I dunno.

It also doesn't help that some games don't have much of a tournament scene going. I ran into this issue with Stella. But since Arena exists, when I want to grind I just play Arena.

I played plenty of different games and went head-to-head with who I ran into. I reliably beat my lower rated opponents, went toe to toe with those at my level, and took on the higher rated players that came my way too. When I faced the best players Area had to offer, I did about as well as one would expect given the ratings. In the games I was lower rated I lost more than I won against them. In the games where my rating was close enough, I took them on even footing and could expect to win as often as I lost.

You keep underestimating just how narrow your experience actually is. Your account has only 4 different games, only two of which you seem to be decently active in. There's going to be a vast amount you haven't run into. I have a decent number of decent games on this site with a solid amount of depth to boot and there's still plenty I haven't run into.

RazorOz wrote: ↑15 October 2026, 19:55

Ceaseless wrote: ↑15 October 2026, 18:33 Something several commenters here don't like to admit is that the reason something keeps winning the vote is that it actually is the best option. I've seen games where one setting dominates, and then an upset happens. The Arena setting isn't suddenly permanently locked in the upset either, there were players that disliked the new formats, and the votes came together and knocked the newcomer out and got things back to their main setting again.

I support general fixes like making sure Guru votes are checking rated games. I like the idea behind letting a player pass on their vote for the next player down.

But not all of the things mentioned here are really systematic issues and are rather just players that want their pet format in, even if it's not that popular. If you like your preferred, yet rejected format, go to bat for it in your own game forums and rally up support for it there, get people playing it and go toe to toe with the people that are just as passionate about their own preferred format.

Depends how you define best, best as in best for competitive play, definitely not the case. Like I have said before Heat heavily debates increasing player count in Arena, because pretty much everyone agrees 5 would be better than 4 (and probably 6) for gameplay, but there's another major factor, that you've got to be able to find real-time games, the higher in player count the best way to play a game is, the less feasible it comes, so there's a balancing factor, which is why 4 currently wins the day. This may though then contribute to a point you made in a previous post I do agree with that the idea that Arena is the only way to play games competitively is not true, most the top Heat players are not playing Arena, yet they nearly all play tournaments where you can set the settings more to what people perceive the best player count to be.

There will be other games that run into similar issues, I mentioned before, TI 4 is going to have that balancing act too because of time. I suspect anything where the true best player count for gameplay is > 4 players runs into this issue, because game availability becomes a real issue, as what happens is a lot of players will queue up for multiple games at once, if your game has the Arena set to 6 players say, you will just constantly lose players, and thus your game takes even longer to start, which can lead to people losing interest and giving up etc., it's a tough balancing act for games where the best player counts are high.

Even the Wingspan debate where they debate between 2 and 3 players every season, a lot of the arguments for 2 players are to do with time. And then you start to have what has long been said, where 2 players has an advantage, because it's easier to become a guru playing 2 player than 3 player at most games.

I didn't see these discussions in the Heat forums at a brief glance, but there are several pages and I'm not as familiar with the game, so it would be easy for me to not see them at the time. What threads are these? As for the player counts themselves, just glancing at the recent games of Heat I saw more 2 player and 4 player games, (and for 4 player not just Arena games.) I can't speak for which player count is the most competitive/why, but it is a fair point that the game needs to be hostable. Even if one variant is more competitive than the other, it doesn't do it much good if there's not a reliable enough way to get games.

1 v 1 is by far my most played player count, though not the only one I've ever done, even on BGA. I've seen those higher player count tables waiting for their last player or two. I have played a decent amount of Bang, a game with a minimum player count of 4, yet an Arena setting for 6 players despite both 4 and 5 being playable counts.

While I don't know about Heat, Wingspan is a game I am familiar with. 2 vs 3 players is not normally in high debate each season, 2 players tends to be on top, but there was a period where 3 players snuck in, but after opposition it got turned back to 2 players. Wingspan doesn't have the greatest amount of interaction, lessening some of the politics that can happen in such games, but it still has some, and pink powered birds can throw a wrench into the player dynamics in particular. That said, even excluding that, 3 players don't just raise the potential time of getting the table started and cause the game to take longer overall. It reduces the percentage of time a player spends actually getting to play. It's not like the extra time in Wingspan is spent with the players interacting in a longer game, it was more additional turns for everyone's opponents to play through, while the player is often left waiting, gives or take things like pink powers and full table effects like Hummingbird, etc.

You might already be familiar with those issues in Heat as well, though I don't know to what degree since it can vary for different games. If a game has more interaction on opposing turns it might not be as much of an empty wait until your own, for instance, though that same interaction raises player politics, etc. If someone was playing something like Magic the Gathering in a free for all format you could be dealing with counterspells, instant speed removal, etc. depending on the types of decks involved.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑15 October 2026, 21:33 I didn't see these discussions in the Heat forums at a brief glance, but there are several pages and I'm not as familiar with the game, so it would be easy for me to not see them at the time. What threads are these? As for the player counts themselves, just glancing at the recent games of Heat I saw more 2 player and 4 player games, (and for 4 player not just Arena games.) I can't speak for which player count is the most competitive/why, but it is a fair point that the game needs to be hostable. Even if one variant is more competitive than the other, it doesn't do it much good if there's not a reliable enough way to get games.

1 v 1 is by far my most played player count, though not the only one I've ever done, even on BGA. I've seen those higher player count tables waiting for their last player or two. I have played a decent amount of Bang, a game with a minimum player count of 4, yet an Arena setting for 6 players despite both 4 and 5 being playable counts.

While I don't know about Heat, Wingspan is a game I am familiar with. 2 vs 3 players is not normally in high debate each season, 2 players tends to be on top, but there was a period where 3 players snuck in, but after opposition it got turned back to 2 players. Wingspan doesn't have the greatest amount of interaction, lessening some of the politics that can happen in such games, but it still has some, and pink powered birds can throw a wrench into the player dynamics in particular. That said, even excluding that, 3 players don't just raise the potential time of getting the table started and cause the game to take longer overall. It reduces the percentage of time a player spends actually getting to play. It's not like the extra time in Wingspan is spent with the players interacting in a longer game, it was more additional turns for everyone's opponents to play through, while the player is often left waiting, gives or take things like pink powers and full table effects like Hummingbird, etc.

You might already be familiar with those issues in Heat as well, though I don't know to what degree since it can vary for different games. If a game has more interaction on opposing turns it might not be as much of an empty wait until your own, for instance, though that same interaction raises player politics, etc. If someone was playing something like Magic the Gathering in a free for all format you could be dealing with counterspells, instant speed removal, etc. depending on the types of decks involved.

It's in so many places that it's hard for me to point you to one place, but the Arena debate has taken place on gurus so isn't public anyway, but there's been discussion on Discord as well, not actually sure if debating Arena format has actually taken place on the forum.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to what people are searching for real-time. It's being heavily influenced by time, firstly if you only have 20 minutes to play, you probably only have time for a 2 player game, and it will fill immediately. Secondly, the issue is, so I myself when I play regular games real-time will play 5 player, but what happens is a lot of players just join every game, so you constantly lose players from your game because they're in another game that started, it almost lends itself to a race to the bottom player count wise. One thing to notice is when someone plays 2 player in reality they will pretty much never be playing actually 2 player, it will have Legends turned on, fill to something, which is another reason why competitively players just wouldn't choose to play 2 player, with 2 actual cars on the grid the game barely functions, and if you fill with Legends, which are effectively AI players, it's making it more luck based than with human players, because there's potential for one of the Legends to randomly screw you. For context Heat's Arena is 4 players + 1 Legend, quite a lot of people would like to get rid of the Legend and play 5 player, the gameplay would definitely be better, but there are concerns about the ability to get real-time games if it changes to 5 player.

In a hypothetical scenario where real-time didn't exist, I think Heat's players would vote to make Heat 6-player if it was exclusively turn-based, because of the big tournament scene I know a lot of the Heat gurus from Discord etc., the general consensus is the game is best at 6, then 5 players. But even at turn-based adding players runs into time issues, the game length exponentially goes up the more players you add, because it makes it a lot less likely you're all online at once to take a quick few turns, it's a problem I can see TI 4 having to balance, because I imagine most games will be turn based. Which is another point on Heat, there are significantly more turn-based players than real-time players, yet gurus has more real-time players because it's easier to qualify, you could argue that isn't fair either.

FrankJones wrote: ↑15 October 2026, 20:49 There are some games that I prefer at 3-player but that are perhaps a hassle to play 3-player turn-based. That could be a factor.

There is a similar factor for me, in that for tournaments I love multiplayer and find it very well fitting for the occasion, but for Arena it would probably be exhausting to go through game after game like that (though that didn't deter me from suggesting multiplayer as a guru, because I'd be curious to see how it plays out).

So it's not a case of what is better, but what can I mentally handle. It's a bit like fast food vs high cuisine, or movies vs films, where one type is easier to consume casually, while the other is ultimately more enjoyable but requires more of us to really get to the apex of its experience.

This post provides some interesting Arena information:

BalGAmor wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 12:54 A few things about Season 26

6.01 million completed Arena tables, across 997 games.
85.4% of them were played in real-time.
52% of ranked players appear in one game; 17% appear in five or more.

Most played games by completed Arena tables: Azul, Ark Nova, Wingspan, Ticket to Ride, Forest Shuffle. These five account for 25% of completed Arena tables.

It is worth noting that Splendor got a lot of traction over Season 26, rising from 48k during Season 25 to 108k for Season 26.

Gurus discussion and outcomes for Season 27

Formula D, Terraforming Mars, and Heat, attracted the most proposal ratings. Notable outcomes:

• Formula D: qualifying returns.
• Heat: Rocky Road enabled; Legend speed increases from +3 to +4.
• Terraforming Mars: Prelude corporations return.

The real-time bit is interesting, I presume it's because real-time absolutely dominates for quicker games, and then in turn quicker games are making up the bulk of the games played, because I'm pretty sure in Heat it's around 50:50, and there are definitely significantly more turn-based players.

RazorOz wrote: ↑16 October 2026, 22:20 The real-time bit is interesting, I presume it's because real-time absolutely dominates for quicker games, and then in turn quicker games are making up the bulk of the games played, because I'm pretty sure in Heat it's around 50:50, and there are definitely significantly more turn-based players.

Not just that, but players have more incentive to play real time since it allows them to put out more games and therefore have more opportunities to land on a winning streak that places them at the top.

I used to be wary about playing real time, because I thought it wouldn't give me the necessary time to really be sure about my moves. I basically went for the quality over quantity approach. But as it turns out, players in general may not be as strong in real time, so there is actually no guarantee I would get a better winrate playing turn based.

The bottom line is, once you are near the top and there is maybe 100 points between you and the leader, what you need to is to land on a 10-20 games streak that will get you there, and the more games you play, the more chances you will have for this to happen.

tbhp wrote: ↑16 October 2026, 22:45 Not just that, but players have more incentive to play real time since it allows them to put out more games and therefore have more opportunities to land on a winning streak that places them at the top.

I used to be wary about playing real time, because I thought it wouldn't give me the necessary time to really be sure about my moves. I basically went for the quality over quantity approach. But as it turns out, players in general may not be as strong in real time, so there is actually no guarantee I would get a better winrate playing turn based.

The bottom line is, once you are near the top and there is maybe 100 points between you and the leader, what you need to is to land on a 10-20 games streak that will get you there, and the more games you play, the more chances you will have for this to happen.

I think this is only really true at high luck games. At games more dominated by skill, it's not really about going on a lucky run to win Arena, it's about playing enough games to even out what luck there is to reach your true level, once you reach that level you won't go much higher no matter how many games you play.

RazorOz wrote: ↑16 October 2026, 23:27 I think this is only really true at high luck games. At games more dominated by skill, it's not really about going on a lucky run to win Arena, it's about playing enough games to even out what luck there is to reach your true level, once you reach that level you won't go much higher no matter how many games you play.

I mean, the idea of win streaks also applies to games that don't have a luck factor. It's just that instead of being about draws of cards and tiles and other in-game elements, the luck is about will you happen to be able to get the wins you need at the right times.

Just like in any sport, there may not be ingrained "luck" per see, but the outcome of games is still uncertain, and so the more you try, the more chances you will have of reaching your objectives.

RazorOz wrote: ↑16 October 2026, 23:27 once you reach that level you won't go much higher no matter how many games you play.

I don't agree. Remember that Arena has a very specific way of working, it's not like a regular tournament system where you look at win percentages. If you are say at the number that reflects your true level statistically speaking, well, you are probably going to keep hovering around that level, and for every streak of games you play starting from that number, you may go much higher than that depending on how many games you win in a row.

I believe that's what happens with most Arena winners. Maybe their "true level" is around 2000, but at some point among the hundreds of games they played they landed on a streak that got them to 2100, so they figured others would be unlikely to get the same streak and stopped playing.

That's the quirk about Arena. It doesn't measure your average performance over the season. It measures the peak you were able to attain (if that's where you decided to stop playing anyway).

If you decide to stop playing at the number you are "expected" to be, you are probably going to be overtaken by players who are equally as skilled as you, but are giving themselves chances to go even higher by playing more games. So, that number is not the end goal, it's actually the beginning. It's where the season is really being fought, to see who will manage to extend their luck long enough, way beyond what their normal winrate would be.

Of course, if you play a game where you are already as a basis much better than everyone else, then this probably won't apply to you, as you will just naturally be ahead and the others may not be lucky enough to be able to catch up to you. But that's pretty specific.

RazorOz wrote: ↑16 October 2026, 22:20 The real-time bit is interesting, I presume it's because real-time absolutely dominates for quicker games, and then in turn quicker games are making up the bulk of the games played, because I'm pretty sure in Heat it's around 50:50, and there are definitely significantly more turn-based players.

A dev posted numbers awhile back in forum. The games overall on the site are similar to those arena numbers. I thought turn based made up a bigger % as well because on the section that used to show active games there were always thousands of active tb games compared to way fewer real time but the games were just slower and ongoing.

tbhp wrote: ↑17 October 2026, 00:04 I mean, the idea of win streaks also applies to games that don't have a luck factor. It's just that instead of being about draws of cards and tiles and other in-game elements, the luck is about will you happen to be able to get the wins you need at the right times.

Just like in any sport, there may not be ingrained "luck" per see, but the outcome of games is still uncertain, and so the more you try, the more chances you will have of reaching your objectives.

I don't agree. Remember that Arena has a very specific way of working, it's not like a regular tournament system where you look at win percentages. If you are say at the number that reflects your true level statistically speaking, well, you are probably going to keep hovering around that level, and for every streak of games you play starting from that number, you may go much higher than this number depending on how many games you win in a row.

I believe that's what happens with most Arena winners. Maybe their "true level" is around 2000, but at some point among the hundreds of games they played, they landed on a streak that got them to 2100, then they figured others would be unlikely to get the same streak and stopped playing.

That's the quirk about Arena. It doesn't measure your average performance over the season. It measures the peak you were able to attain (if that's where you decided to stop playing anyway).

If you decide to stop playing at the number you are "expected" to be, you are probably going to be overtaken by players who are equally as skilled as you, but are giving themselves chances to go even higher by playing more games.

I can pretty much tell you that is how Arena works. I have won Heat Arena 11 seasons in a row, it's not because I am going on a lucky streak every season. Heat is a game with some luck, but still a lot more skill-based than high luck games. If you have the highest win rate at a game like that, you will win in Arena pretty much as long as you play enough games to reach your level, that's why a lot of the same players repeatedly win in Arena. I know from experience when I have tried playing significantly more games to try and increase my Arena ranking it doesn't work, I just end up going round in circles.

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑17 October 2026, 00:14 A dev posted numbers awhile back in forum. The games overall on the site are similar to those arena numbers. I thought turn based made up a bigger % as well because on the section that used to show active games there were always thousands of active tb games compared to way fewer real time but the games were just slower and ongoing.

Yes, that's very apparent when you look at a game like Heat's active games, they're nearly all turn-based games, yet for Arena I think there's only maybe a slight bias towards turn-based games in the numbers.

It has to change significantly though if you're playing a quicker game, take a game like Azul, an Arena game takes 5 minutes, I presume the vast majority of them are played real-time as it's so much easier to fit in time for a game.