Board Game Arena

Cile wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 18:26

RazorOz wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 17:27

Cile wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 16:55 The whole guru system just overly complicates things. Just make it "anyone who has played at least X arena games during the current season can vote on the settings for next season." 'X' can vary based on the length/popularity of the game.

People who aren't playing arena don't need to vote on arena settings, but there are reasons not to limit the voting to the people who are just trying to complete as many games as they can as fast as possible.

That doesn't seem a good idea. If you do this, get a bad format, you'd never get out of it as players will just not play it, while the people playing will just keep voting for the same thing.

That's already what happens: the players that want to grind the arena ranks by playing a high volume of games vote for settings that allow for the fastest possible games (such as 2 players at the table), and then they are the only ones who get to keep voting on the arena settings due to the volume of games they are playing.

I'm not suggesting a high threshold to be able to vote. For most games I'd think 3 to 5 games would be enough to establish "I like this game enough to want to play it, I've given the current arena settings a reasonable try and would like to vote for something different". For very fast games like Can't Stop you might want a higher threshold, for something like Twilight Imperium I could see that being no higher than 2 or 3.

You can grind in Arena, but other players can grind outside of Arena. That's the difference between what happens now and what you were suggesting. As the best format for the majority of games, 2 player is the clear choice, though the unusual games where this isn't the case aren't finding themselves just going for the minimum player count, such as Bang.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 19:07 As the best format for the majority of games, 2 player is the clear choice, though the unusual games where this isn't the case aren't finding themselves just going for the minimum player count, such as Bang.

Games like Harmonies and Castle Combo are arguably more complete and more balanced at high player counts, yet gurus always heavily vote for 2 player.

It seems that people just want to be able to put out a lot of games. With multiplayer, they might take much longer to complete and you never know if they are not going to end prematurely and you won't get the points you should have gotten.

Can't exactly hold it against people for having those reasons, I like being able to climb fast too, but it's a bit of a shame. I'm surprised you haven't heard of any games where multiplayer is better and where that's also not picked for Arena.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 19:07 You can grind in Arena, but other players can grind outside of Arena. That's the difference between what happens now and what you were suggesting. As the best format for the majority of games, 2 player is the clear choice, though the unusual games where this isn't the case aren't finding themselves just going for the minimum player count, such as Bang.

Is there anywhere we can actually see a list of every game what the Arena format is, to know roughly what % of games Arena is set to 2 player. I think there's merits to the idea that 2 player is most competitive at a lot of games, but I think it's exaggerating it a bit to imply it's rare where that's not the case, there's a lot of games which require more than 2 to properly function, eg. most drafting games suck at 2 player, racing games are mostly better at higher player counts, the same for area control.

I know there's that thread where it tells you the changes, but it only tells you the games where the format changed, so doesn't list all games. But one example I know they've changed back to 3 player this season, but 7 Wonders Architects went to 2 player Arena last season, and that would be an example of a game that imo is just not good at 2 player.

Even something like the newly released TI 4, I don't know what they default set the Arena season to for release, but it will be interesting what the gurus eventually decide on, because the general consensus is the game is best at 6 right? But 6 player arena is often a tough sell for other reasons, the ability to find games being the main one.

RazorOz wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 22:19 I think there's merits to the idea that 2 player is most competitive at a lot of games, but I think it's exaggerating it a bit to imply it's rare where that's not the case, there's a lot of games which require more than 2 to properly function, eg. most drafting games suck at 2 player, racing games are mostly better at higher player counts, the same for area control.

Yeah, their comment struck me as odd too, considering traditionally speaking board games have always been about multiplayer. Sure, there are 1v1 games too, but multiplayer is a major part of board game culture.

Of course, it's possible that most of those games weren't particularly intended with competitive contexts in mind. But you may also argue the same of 1v1 games, and I think in many cases multiplayer offers a lot of possibilities to analyze things and outplay your opponents in a way that one on one can't.

It's not the first time I see Ceaseless appear to be biased against multiplayer. Of course, that could be a result of the types of games they play. Personally, I've found multiplayer to be very rewarding in the games I play here, so I'm sure this biases my perspective a bit too.

RazorOz wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 22:19

Ceaseless wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 19:07 You can grind in Arena, but other players can grind outside of Arena. That's the difference between what happens now and what you were suggesting. As the best format for the majority of games, 2 player is the clear choice, though the unusual games where this isn't the case aren't finding themselves just going for the minimum player count, such as Bang.

Is there anywhere we can actually see a list of every game what the Arena format is, to know roughly what % of games Arena is set to 2 player. I think there's merits to the idea that 2 player is most competitive at a lot of games, but I think it's exaggerating it a bit to imply it's rare where that's not the case, there's a lot of games which require more than 2 to properly function, eg. most drafting games suck at 2 player, racing games are mostly better at higher player counts, the same for area control.

I know there's that thread where it tells you the changes, but it only tells you the games where the format changed, so doesn't list all games. But one example I know they've changed back to 3 player this season, but 7 Wonders Architects went to 2 player Arena last season, and that would be an example of a game that imo is just not good at 2 player.

Even something like the newly released TI 4, I don't know what they default set the Arena season to for release, but it will be interesting what the gurus eventually decide on, because the general consensus is the game is best at 6 right? But 6 player arena is often a tough sell for other reasons, the ability to find games being the main one.

I'm not aware of one, though it seems a bit awkward given the sheer volume of such games, as well as how inactive many of them might be.

I'm not sure where you get that drafting is bad for 2 player. I can personally attest to games like Azul and Wizards of the Grimoire as drafting games where 2 player is king. While BGA doesn't list Splendor as drafting, I'd say it fits the bill too. Sushi Go seems a bit more contentious for players on the player count, but I'd say 2 player is king there too.

Area control seems messier, for one thing I'd probably need to pin down a more specific definition for it, but from my general sense of it the player count issue is more a matter of determining what skills the game wants to emphasize. If it's about tactics or a general strategy to outplay your opponent on the board, then 2 player tends to be king, I'm pretty sure we've got a few 2 player abstracts that would fit the idea of Area control. On the other hand, if you're looking to play politics and outmaneuver your opponents outside the board, that's going to need more than 2 players, while tactics can matter, it's overshadowed due to your relative lack of resources to your opponents, so making sure you're not perceived as the threat tends to matter more than making moves that objectively develop your on-board presence.

As for racing games, I'm not familiar enough with them to say, though it would also help to have a definition for them, such as how strictly we're looking as visual aspects of racing (such as cars) vs a more specific definition like how you get to your win condition (something like reaching x points to end the game seems like a race, but is that what's being used here?)

Ceaseless wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 22:53 I'm not aware of one, though it seems a bit awkward given the sheer volume of such games, as well as how inactive many of them might be.

I'm not sure where you get that drafting is bad for 2 player. I can personally attest to games like Azul and Wizards of the Grimoire as drafting games where 2 player is king. While BGA doesn't list Splendor as drafting, I'd say it fits the bill too. Sushi Go seems a bit more contentious for players on the player count, but I'd say 2 player is king there too.

Area control seems messier, for one thing I'd probably need to pin down a more specific definition for it, but from my general sense of it the player count issue is more a matter of determining what skills the game wants to emphasize. If it's about tactics or a general strategy to outplay your opponent on the board, then 2 player tends to be king, I'm pretty sure we've got a few 2 player abstracts that would fit the idea of Area control. On the other hand, if you're looking to play politics and outmaneuver your opponents outside the board, that's going to need more than 2 players, while tactics can matter, it's overshadowed due to your relative lack of resources to your opponents, so making sure you're not perceived as the threat tends to matter more than making moves that objectively develop your on-board presence.

As for racing games, I'm not familiar enough with them to say, though it would also help to have a definition for them, such as how strictly we're looking as visual aspects of racing (such as cars) vs a more specific definition like how you get to your win condition (something like reaching x points to end the game seems like a race, but is that what's being used here?)

I guess when I say drafting I'm not thinking of games like Azul as a drafting game, I'm thinking of it as an abstract strategy game which are invariably best at 2, and I would agree Azul is best at 2. I am thinking along the lines of games like 7 Wonders, It's A Wonderful World etc. Sushi Go (at least Party which is what I'm familiar with) I would argue is not best at 2.

Area control games in the sense I am thinking often just don't work at 2. There are of course area control games that are designed for 2 player, but I am thinking more grandiose dudes on a map controlling areas. Not sure how many are here, but El Grande is here, I don't know what they play for Arena, but I'd be shocked if it's 2 player, as it's just not good at 2 player imo.

I think the reason a lot of racing games don't really work at 2 is the game mechanics don't really come in at 2 player in games like Heat, Formula D etc. But even games that are racing theme, but more a betting game, eg. Downforce, I assume their Arena isn't 2 player, as again it just doesn't function well as a 2 player game imo.

There's other games where I'm not even sure what category they fall in, so King of Tokyo, again I would argue is not best at 2, but again I don't know what they're even playing in Arena to begin with.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 19:07 You can grind in Arena, but other players can grind outside of Arena. That's the difference between what happens now and what you were suggesting. As the best format for the majority of games, 2 player is the clear choice, though the unusual games where this isn't the case aren't finding themselves just going for the minimum player count, such as Bang.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a player to grind non-arena games in order to hope it's enough to become a guru just to be able to participate in the vote for the next season if they don't like the current system. My suggestion doesn't require grinding at all, just playing a couple games with the current settings to show your interest and that you've actually tried to current settings before saying you don't like it.

On further thought though I don't think even that is necessary. Just let anyone with 100 ELO that qualifies to play in arena the opportunity to vote for the next season's settings. Theoretically some one could try to toss a spoiler vote on a game they don't play, but that would be drowned out by having more people voting in total.

Cile wrote: ↑15 October 2026, 00:54

Ceaseless wrote: ↑14 October 2026, 19:07 You can grind in Arena, but other players can grind outside of Arena. That's the difference between what happens now and what you were suggesting. As the best format for the majority of games, 2 player is the clear choice, though the unusual games where this isn't the case aren't finding themselves just going for the minimum player count, such as Bang.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a player to grind non-arena games in order to hope it's enough to become a guru just to be able to participate in the vote for the next season if they don't like the current system. My suggestion doesn't require grinding at all, just playing a couple games with the current settings to show your interest and that you've actually tried to current settings before saying you don't like it.

On further thought though I don't think even that is necessary. Just let anyone with 100 ELO that qualifies to play in arena the opportunity to vote for the next season's settings. Theoretically some one could try to toss a spoiler vote on a game they don't play, but that would be drowned out by having more people voting in total.

This is BGA, a site for playing games. Playing the format you want to play shouldn't be a chore to begin with. Expecting them to want to play their format as much as their fellow voters isn't so wild. Having the voters be players that actually play the format they're voting for is reasonable. There's no need to have them play a setting they don't want to just to get a vote either.

100 rating is nothing, you don't even have to know the rules, you could just join games and sit until your opponents quit or kick you and you'd get to 100 eventually, that's how low a standard 100 rating is when you can't even lose rating until you're above it. A player could make 100 alts at 100 rating.
Even among "regular" voters a flood of them don't even have to care about what happens, they could just vote randomly for giggles, someone on some social media site wants to make a joke and a bunch of people decided to jump in on it.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑15 October 2026, 01:27 This is BGA, a site for playing games. Playing the format you want to play shouldn't be a chore to begin with. Expecting them to want to play their format as much as their fellow voters isn't so wild. Having the voters be players that actually play the format they're voting for is reasonable. There's no need to have them play a setting they don't want to just to get a vote either.

Some people are here to be competitive and don't find it fulfilling to grind regular games even if it's a format they enjoy.

There is no disadvantage to what Cile suggests. It only opens the door to more people to be gurus and makes the requirements less. Having to play a format you don't like 3 to 5 times seems a lot more reasonable than having to play a format you like a hundred times in a context you get no satisfaction from.

There is no reason to be against the suggestion unless you believe there should be strict requirements for being a guru, such as playing a lot of games.

Sure, ideally it would be best to just be able to select the people who are most interested in Arena, based on how many games they play. But that idea is not workable in reality, because people who are competitive are generally not the kind to go grind regular games, and they probably aren't going to play competitively a format they don't enjoy either. So what we get instead is a self reinforcing circle where the format that gets picked has an advantage in future votes because the people who can vote are likely those who enjoy it in the first place.

Given the problem this poses, I think settling for just giving guru status to those who show some interest in Arena is the best compromise, and it has the added advantage of being more democratic, since the requirement is almost nonexistent.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑15 October 2026, 01:27 100 rating is nothing, you don't even have to know the rules, you could just join games and sit until your opponents quit or kick you and you'd get to 100 eventually, that's how low a standard 100 rating is when you can't even lose rating until you're above it. A player could make 100 alts at 100 rating.
Even among "regular" voters a flood of them don't even have to care about what happens, they could just vote randomly for giggles, someone on some social media site wants to make a joke and a bunch of people decided to jump in on it.

Do you actually think someone would do that? Let's think about the reality of that for a minute:

Yes, 100 is not difficult, my point is it's a low bar. How exactly do you get to 100 by joining games an idling? You think eventually opponents are going to concede instead of booting you? And how long would that take to get one vote?

So let's scrap the "idle your way to 100" idea. Getting 100 could take 2 or 3 games if you're skilled at the game. In order to make 100 alts that's 200 to 300 games, which is a significant investment, and the pay off is... a less than ideal arena settings? I don't see where the giggles come in. Is there a game where a specific combination of settings makes the game bad?

You're suggesting someone would invest the time and skill to win 200-300 games of a game they don't like, just so they can have 100 votes to make the next Arena season for Heat 2 players (Only game I could think of with a 'bad' option)? I don't know how to check how many active players there are for a game but there are 327 users with 400+ ELO in Heat, I don't think those 100 fake accounts would move the needle voting for a setting nobody wants. Meanwhile the person trying to do so has provided another player in an extra 200 to 300 games.