Board Game Arena

I've lost with Gen 1 AI central. Twice.

I've probably only played Gen 1 AI central ~15-20 times before too.

FrankJones wrote: ↑04 August 2025, 19:37 Oh, come on!

The AI Central player had a horrible hand. You had a tremendous opening hand.

And, what that game proves is what I said earlier in this thread - that AI central is not good if you play a series of terrible science cards to get the card into play.

I mean ... an utterly useless physics complex, a basically useless medical lab, and, a bottom tier corporation (or so I have been told; I think Thorgate is okay) to have the energy production for AI central.

That's an utterly insane sequence to play, but I would argue that hand was a losing hand from the start.

No argument from me, I wouldn't have done the sequence either. But you are essentially saying "if you ignore that it can be tough to get AI online quickly and cheaply, then it's very strong". Yes, but the first part is the point -- there often isn't a slick, easy way to get the card online early. This is an extreme version of that, but it is precisely why the card isn't as strong as some think. Certainly not an "auto-win", strongest card in the deck.

Also disagree that it's lost from the start. No heat PL Aquifer Pumping Arctic can be beaten by plenty of strong setups that develop quickly.

Corvus Mortis wrote: ↑04 August 2025, 21:25

Also disagree that it's lost from the start. No heat PL Aquifer Pumping Arctic can be beaten by plenty of strong setups that develop quickly.

I am also taking into consideration who is playing.
Rook's hand versus YOU specifically, with the hand you had, is a pretty steep hill to climb.

Personally, I would happily bet on myself against Rook in that game with the starting hands each player had. I dipped below 500 recently but I usually fluctuate between 500 and 540, I think? And I believe that if I focus, don't play late at night tired and/or intoxicated, I could be 600+.

I think rook plays a high-variance style that results in even wilder Elo swings than what is already a very high variance game.

*moderators have removed post for insult

Bogeyun wrote: ↑04 August 2025, 19:46 I've lost with Gen 1 AI central. Twice.

I've probably only played Gen 1 AI central ~15-20 times before too.

Just twice in 5 and a half thousand games?

Lucky… must have lost at least half a dozen gen 1 AIC games.

This one is for Bogeyun https://boardgamearena.com/15/terraform ... =712045808 Ecoline vs Vitor on Hellas

The fact of the matter is still that TM was not developed and is therefore not balanced to be a 2P-game.

As a result, the outcome of a game is much more dependent on luck than normal, which makes it much less fun for Arena games.

Yeah, Toll Station is definitely made for 5p.

St0nemender wrote: ↑18 August 2025, 11:40 The fact of the matter is still that TM was not developed and is therefore not balanced to be a 2P-game.

As a result, the outcome of a game is much more dependent on luck than normal, which makes it much less fun for Arena games.

it may not have been developed to be a 2p game, but by some chance it ended up being best balanced for 2-3p. Anything above is just pure randomness.

2p & 3p have a decent amount of skill, with most people believing 2p to be the format with least randomness mostly cause of the kingmaking being removed.

Bogeyun wrote: ↑18 August 2025, 21:42

St0nemender wrote: ↑18 August 2025, 11:40 The fact of the matter is still that TM was not developed and is therefore not balanced to be a 2P-game.

As a result, the outcome of a game is much more dependent on luck than normal, which makes it much less fun for Arena games.

it may not have been developed to be a 2p game, but by some chance it ended up being best balanced for 2-3p. Anything above is just pure randomness.

2p & 3p have a decent amount of skill, with most people believing 2p to be the format with least randomness mostly cause of the kingmaking being removed.

I completely agree with everything Bogeyun said here. And to add on, I think there is always going to be a chasm between strong players and weak players when it comes to the topic of the most enjoyable TM player count (no offense intended to anyone, regardless of your opinion on this topic).

I think that weaker players have more fun with the increased randomness that higher player counts bring. And weaker players don't tend to get as upset about kingmaking because they obviously aren't as skilled at evaluating who is ahead in a given position. Due to the nature of how the game can swing on a very narrow margin, games are often decided by the actions of the player who comes in last, which, in my opinion, doesn't lend itself well to a competitive format.

Furthermore, when you're playing in a format where each player is aware of the other players' relative strengths, they will naturally default to attacking the stronger player, which is understandable, but also not fun for the stronger player.

So for those reasons, I've come to prefer 2-player for a competitive format.