Board Game Arena

CB Droege wrote: ↑13 January 2020, 16:30 I disagree that the arena should have settings determined by "top players".

First: It's more interesting to force "top players" to learn to play in ways that are more fun and interesting for others (It's not always about choosing the variant with the most Elo growth (which will almost always be the settings with the least number of players))

Second: The rules and settings can change from season to season, so I hope many play settings will be represented over time. Personally I only really like to play 7 Wonders as a 7-player game, as I feel it's more interesting and balanced that way, like that's the # that they had in mind when designing the game. I certainly hope that one season some time in the future will be for 7-player games of 7 Wonders. But, you don't have to play that season if you don't want. Just as I wont be playing in any 3-player season of 7 Wonders, since I think it's boring. ;D

Just to address the "fun" vs "boring" argument:
As I understand the Arena setting is for competitive play, which is differentiated from casual play. My guess is that in the world of 7 Wonders, 3p is more competitive than any other option (looking forward to Gunslinger's analysis) as it should be the one where the luck factor is the lowest and the strategy factor is the highest. The idea behind this is that there is no competition per se, if the game is just about luck (there's really no room in this game for bluffing or some other form of skill, like in poker, for example), thus, it follows that the less luck, the more competition. Often it is the case that for many people "fun" = luck = everybody has a chance of winning, whilst "boring" = less luck = those of best ability win, which may of course not be a lot of fun, if you'd like to win sometime but are not interested in writing/reading a long expose on the nuances of 3p games .

In short: competitive should be, first and foremost, competitive. This means that everything should be done to make it as competitive as possible, thus removing as much luck/broken features/unbalances etc. from the game. That's why the Arena was created... The usual fun area also exists, so that is covered anyway. The Arena is then, perhaps, for the "boring" people...

Just 3 things:

_ we certainly do not want to have 2 distinct ladders for 7 Wonders, with 2 world champions. We want a single 7 Wonders champion each season, so only 1 configuration per season.

_ if some of you really want to have a 7W arena with 3 players, we may alternate 4P and 3P configuration from one season to another.

_ if the current configuration is not your preferred, remember that you can still play 7W using Simple mode

sourisdudesert wrote: ↑13 January 2020, 19:55 Just 3 things:

_ we certainly do not want to have 2 distinct ladders for 7 Wonders, with 2 world champions. We want a single 7 Wonders champion each season, so only 1 configuration per season.

It would be nice if you could say a few more words on this. Why do you think this is the best way? I found the FAQ for the Arena Mode very helpful but haven't read anything about why there has to be only one champion per game. This is an issue for very many games so I think many users would appreciate some written thoughts on this. Many games are totally different based on player number.

I am not saying that multiple disciplines per game should or could be implemented fast but it seems that you rule out the concept completely.

dschingis27 wrote: ↑13 January 2020, 21:00 It would be nice if you could say a few more words on this.

This is the right topic:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13799

Sorry, but we really want to have a single champion for each game, so only one ladder, like it is the case in real life championship.

So the reason seems to be this false statement.

Are there enough active players to reasonably support multiple fixed formats?

The reason is 80 voters?? 80 people decided for thousands of players?

sourisdudesert wrote: ↑13 January 2020, 19:55 Just 3 things:

_ we certainly do not want to have 2 distinct ladders for 7 Wonders, with 2 world champions. We want a single 7 Wonders champion each season, so only 1 configuration per season.

_ if some of you really want to have a 7W arena with 3 players, we may alternate 4P and 3P configuration from one season to another.

_ if the current configuration is not your preferred, remember that you can still play 7W using Simple mode

Not playing for a season is not an option for me, I like this game too much and play a few games daily. Playing in a mode which doesn't affect ranking isn't acceptable either; while ranking isn't everything, it is clearly quite important.

Also, I wouldn't call 4-player "not preferred". I used to play a lot more 4 player games in the past, after a few years of mixing I realized that 3-player is just superior as a strategy.

Honestly, I don't understand why having two "champions" is bad - sprinters and marathon champions are usually different people. But as I said - it is possibly a good long term direction (if you ever get Armada - it'd require separate ranking as well). What we need now is ability to choose player count in competitive games.

PS: A friendly advice from a game developer with 25+ years of experience. Taking away a choice from players shouldn't be considered a good thing. You are selling an entertainment product, why make users less happy by forcing some artificial restrictions? Just let users choose. One size doesn't fit all. Thank you.

DelegateX wrote: ↑13 January 2020, 15:17 - Face selection much more reasonable than random selection, especially for competitive play, random can seriously affect the balance of the play.
- My guess is also that 3p is the preferred option for top players, it should be the most strategic (is there any analysis of this out there?).

Essentially, the second hand provides full knowledge of all the cards (minus guilds) and it is possible to start planning for real. In four player game the second hand leaves a lot of uncertainly regarding the card distribution between hands 3 and 4. Planning on the 3rd hand is way too late.

Most of the picks should either hurt a particular opponent (not a random one, but an actual threat), or benefit the player. Just attacking isn't a winning strategy, so only a few moves per game can be attacks. In four player game there aren't enough picks to control the opponents, thus situations "I lost and couldnt've done any better because they let him win" are much more common.

Also, controlling a player next to your next is hard, controlling a next-next-next player is almost impossible - there is too much uncertainty in regards of action of players between you and the target. BTW, the 4th hand doesn't even get to your next-next-next target.

In 3 player each hand allows for two picks and allows to affect both opponents twice. In four player hands 3 and 4 allow for a single pick only, greatly reducing flexibility and ability to plan.

Four player configuration is prone to a "military squeeze", when two opposite opponents (North and South) are losing military during the first age, they can be easily controlled by "informal team" of East and West during the next ages. It is highly unlikely North or South will win. This configuration is frequently combined with a "science split" (green divided between North and South), making North and South position even weaker. Three player game doesn't have that issue.

PS: Yet another thing - abundance of gold giving cards in the first 2 ages (3 vs. 1 in three player) and brown resources in the second age (8 vs. 4) makes attack into gold and brown substantially less viable. Again, it makes the game more situational / less strategic.

I can see how if you only come to BGA to play 7 Wonders, it might make sense to you to have many ladders, but this site has a lot of games on it, and if each one had enough ladders to make everyone happy that THEIR preferences are taken into account, then there would be thousands of ladders, and they would become pretty meaningless. I think that the solution of changing up the configuration each season is pretty fair.

Also, if we always set the settings with what is "most strategic" by the standards many of you seem to be using, then every game would always be played with the least number of players the rules allow, which is silly.