Arena Settings

[Pistol Star]

Why is Arena set to the first edition?

As a new player, it's extremely daunting to hit 100, queue up for a game and find the entire landscape is a dull wash with extremely low variance and how it heavily favors the first person to play.

Also, sort of explains why I'm getting games immediately in simple games vs arena.

Set the game options to the latest version please, giving seasoned players the option to opt for the first edition. It makes no sense to play things that are out of print unless you want stagnation and a lack of players.

Just as Niall already wrote the 2019 edition favors the first player even more.

[Pascalbro]

Why is Arena set to the first edition?

As a new player, it's extremely daunting to hit 100, queue up for a game and find the entire landscape is a dull wash with extremely low variance and how it heavily favors the first person to play.

Also, sort of explains why I'm getting games immediately in simple games vs arena.

Set the game options to the latest version please, giving seasoned players the option to opt for the first edition. It makes no sense to play things that are out of print unless you want stagnation and a lack of players.

Just as Niall already wrote the 2019 edition favors the first player even more.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Lets say this game had a tile that let you automatically win the game, as soon as you placed it, it would still even out as, guess what, your opponent also has access to this magical win tile.

This is why your entire argument as well as the actions taken to basically tank the player base and force people to play with an out of print version, is complete and utterly nonsensical. The probability of this magical scenario where one obtains yellow tile number 6, early in the game is equal for you as it is for the other player.

This is an extremely basic concept in statistics I'd expect people dictating terms of play at a competitive level, to understand.

Also, the likely reason people aren't chiming into the forums is probably because their experience with such interactions, is the conclusion that it's a huge waste of time. Again, I'll state that it's one of the most popular games on BGA right now and the arena pales in comparison due to long wait times and rank mismatching due to lack of participation.

[Qualitaetsgarant]

[Pistol Star]

Why is Arena set to the first edition?

As a new player, it's extremely daunting to hit 100, queue up for a game and find the entire landscape is a dull wash with extremely low variance and how it heavily favors the first person to play.

Also, sort of explains why I'm getting games immediately in simple games vs arena.

Set the game options to the latest version please, giving seasoned players the option to opt for the first edition. It makes no sense to play things that are out of print unless you want stagnation and a lack of players.

Just as Niall already wrote the 2019 edition favors the first player even more.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Lets say this game had a tile that let you automatically win the game, as soon as you placed it, it would still even out as, guess what, your opponent also has access to this magical win tile.

This is why your entire argument as well as the actions taken to basically tank the player base and force people to play with an out of print version, is complete and utterly nonsensical. The probability of this magical scenario where one obtains yellow tile number 6, early in the game is equal for you as it is for the other player.

This is an extremely basic concept in statistics I'd expect people dictating terms of play at a competitive level, to understand.

Also, the likely reason people aren't chiming into the forums is probably because their experience with such interactions, is the conclusion that it's a huge waste of time. Again, I'll state that it's one of the most popular games on BGA right now and the arena pales in comparison due to long wait times and rank mismatching due to lack of participation.

Obviously I don't have any idea what I am talking about and you do. I think that's obvious to everyone in this thread

You know it's always very easy to check a hypothesis like yours in a very simple way.

Let's take your idea a couple steps further into the extremes and say instead of 1 out of 26 yellow tiles 26 out of 26 yellow tiles would gift a player an instant win.

Now the winner would always be the player who could, guess what, first take and place any yellow tile at turn 1 or latest at turn 2 of the game.

This would turn the game into a complete lottery. I think it would be a great game and loads of fun! Maybe we should hope to play this type of game instead of the horrible game called The Castles of Burgundy!?

Oh, one more thing about the "mismatches" in arena. An elite league player isn't necessarily better than a bronze player. You could be the best player in the world and be a bronze player because you didn't yet play any matches in the current arena season just as you could be the worst player in the world and still reach the elite league. Surely the average elite league player is a bit better than the average bronze player but it's not that much of a difference in terms of quality of play as it is extremely easy to reach the elite league even for the worst players. Important is the ELO (ranking points) in arena. Everybody starts with 1500 ranking points and a player's rating points will only be visible once they reach the elite league. So after a couple dozens games a player should roughly reach their real level in terms of ranking points except for the best and the worst players. It would take these players longer because their real level is so much higher/lower than the starting point of 1500 rating points.

It's also normal that arena games tend to have longer waiting times compared to simple games because not everybody wants to play only x player counts with y game settings. There are surely many people who prefer a 4 player count and/or 3 player counts. Others like you prefer the 2019 edition. BGA has clearly stated that the arena is designed for the most competitive environments and obviously the vast majority of players want the most competitive settings in arena.

Let's take the example of a game like chess. It's very old and has many quite new variants, yet on the most competitive levels (e.g. World Chess Championship) only the classical chess is being played as, guess what, it is the most competitive of all. No variants like Antichess, Crazyhouse, Racing Kings, Chess960, etc. are being played there.

[Pascalbro]

Obviously I don't have any idea what I am talking about and you do. I think that's obvious to everyone in this thread

Considering you're all oblivious to basic concepts when it comes to how statistics works, yes. This glaring omission, as well as the lack of a competitive arena, is evidence that you all are not qualified to dictate terms when it comes to a competitive environment.

You know it's always very easy to check a hypothesis like yours in a very simple way.

Yes, by looking at results versus relying on obtuse observation.

Let's take your idea a couple steps further into the extremes and say instead of 1 out of 26 yellow tiles 26 out of 26 yellow tiles would gift a player an instant win.

Now the winner would always be the player who could, guess what, first take and place any yellow tile at turn 1 or latest at turn 2 of the game.

This would turn the game into a complete lottery. I think it would be a great game and loads of fun! Maybe we should hope to play this type of game instead of the horrible game called The Castles of Burgundy!?

'Take it a couple of steps further'? I already postulated this scenario. I said if you had a yellow tile that would immediately win the game for you, it would still balance out as, statistically, it would balance itself out. What did you think I was talking about?

Perhaps approaching conversations with a little humility and empathy, might help you understand what's actually been presented? Instead of devolving into condescension, ignorance and creating an environment void of the very competition you claim to be for.

Oh, one more thing about the "mismatches" in arena. An elite league player isn't necessarily better than a bronze player. You could be the best player in the world and be a bronze player because you didn't yet play any matches in the current arena season just as you could be the worst player in the world and still reach the elite league. Surely the average elite league player is a bit better than the average bronze player but it's not that much of a difference in terms of quality of play as it is extremely easy to reach the elite league even for the worst players. Important is the ELO (ranking points) in arena. Everybody starts with 1500 ranking points and a player's rating points will only be visible once they reach the elite league. So after a couple dozens games a player should roughly reach their real level in terms of ranking points except for the best and the worst players. It would take these players longer because their real level is so much higher/lower than the starting point of 1500 rating points.

Yeah, this is a fairy tale and more evidence that you enjoy speaking at length on things you have no information on.

I only started playing this game about 1-2 weeks ago. As one of your colleagues so thoughtfully put out, my win rate was at 37%. It's at 44% now, likely because I'm getting practice in and improving as well as being matched with people closer to my elo. I've got about 40 games worth of experience.

The last game I played in ranked. Rank 24. 65 percent win rate, over 300 games under their belt

Here's another, rank 40 in CoB. 84 percent win rate with over 200 games played.

This one's not so bad. Ranked 123. 54 percent win rate with 200 games.

Rank 26 86 games, 62 percent. Another elite.

Rank 22 over 500 games played with a 63 percent win rate.

This is the majority of my games, in arena. So again, you're speaking out of complete ignorance.

It's also normal that arena games tend to have longer waiting times...

Not this long and not with this level of disparity between matches.

Why? Because you're pushing people to play a very specific rendition of a game, farming low ranked players and have absolutely killed the competitive environment. Moreover you don't even know how statistics work. You just don't want to deal with new content and, that's fine, but it shouldn't come at the cost of competition and everyone else who's perfectly happy engaging with the materials the developer put forth.

So congratulations on that. You're number one in a very large desert at everyone else's expense.

[Silene]

'Take it a couple of steps further'? I already postulated this scenario. I said if you had a yellow tile that would immediately win the game for you, it would still balance out as, statistically, it would balance itself out. What did you think I was talking about?

Yes, you are right. It does balance out statistically. (...at least in games between players of same skill)

But nobody questioned that. The point is that the games are not as fun as they could be without an overwhelming-mighty-tile-6. Close and interesting games that are decided by good decisions are more fun. Having a good portion of games being a big win by one side (and yes, that can be you or your opponent so it's not unfair per-se) because they draw an early tile-6 is not a fun playing experience and also less competitive than leaving out such tile.

The difference is really not that big between the 2 versions. It's basically only this tile (plus 2-3 very small things that you might not even notice). It even looks the same, after you found the very nice option to switch to 2019-look (and that look is not out of print ^^).

So I don't think the played version is the reason for long waiting time in arena. Long waiting time seems to be a problem on many other games as well. It's probably a problem with arena in general.

[Qualitaetsgarant]

1. Pistol Star is Rank Nr.1 because he is the best player on this platform, not on anyones expense.
2. If you like the 2019 design more, just change the graphics in the settings and stop whining. You can play Arena with the 2019 interface.
3. Don't try to teach others about statistics. Neither did we ask for that, nor do we need it.
4. We dealed with 2019 edition and voted which settings we want to have for next Arena. A wide majority agreed to keep First edition. You surely can have a different opinion, but don't talk like representing the majority.
5. With your rough, impolite behaviour you will neither convince anyone, nor reach anything.

[Niall]

Pascalbro, I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve anymore except that you are clearly getting increasingly entrenched with what seemed like an aggressively aired mild annoyance that has turned into a hill to die on.

Your assertion that both players have an equal chance of getting the unbalanced tile is true when played over lots of games, therefore you say it is “balanced” statistically speaking. But do you want “balance” that rewards skill, or “balance” that forces everyone’s win ratio towards 50% in the long run, regardless of their ability? You seem to be arguing for the latter.

You might as well argue that both players in a coin toss have an equal chance to win as heads and tails even out statistically over enough tosses - therefore it’s a balanced game. But in my view it wouldn’t lend itself to a great arena experience, as there is no room for skill to modify the outcome.

Being the start player in a game of CoB (chosen randomly) gives you a greater chance of getting the OP tile. And an equal chance is not the same as an equal opportunity. The former rewards luck, whereas the latter allows for skill.

Also, no one is dictating anything here. We’re merely arguing the case for our own preferences, as are you.

[Pascalbro]

Pascalbro, I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve anymore except that you are clearly getting increasingly entrenched with what seemed like an aggressively aired mild annoyance that has turned into a hill to die on.

Feigning ignorance is just as bad as being ignorant. What I'm trying to achieve is brutally obvious

Your assertion that both players have an equal chance of getting the unbalanced tile is true when played over lots of games, therefore you say it is “balanced” statistically speaking. But do you want “balance” that rewards skill, or “balance” that forces everyone’s win ratio towards 50% in the long run, regardless of their ability? You seem to be arguing for the latter.

You might as well argue that both players in a coin toss have an equal chance to win as heads and tails even out statistically over enough tosses - therefore it’s a balanced game. But in my view it wouldn’t lend itself to a great arena experience, as there is no room for skill to modify the outcome.

The opinion that the tile is unbalanced is silly for two reasons.

First, because it obviously isn't. It's not the magic win button you're all making it out to be. The developer spiced it up for a reason and one that was likely thoroughly tested and concluded as fine to have as an inclusion. Moreover, you have no statistics to back up this claim, only opinion, which has a lack of understanding of basic statistics. So, right off the bat you're uninformed and people are using their inflated status to argue over me because I have less experience, which is rude, especially when followed up with obtuse condescension illustrating they have no idea what they're talking about.

Second, because, even if it was, it doesn't matter. You can't say that you're forcing first edition in the sake of competition, because everyone gets this tile at the same frequency.

So what are you arguing for, 'skill'? Please. People who are skilled don't rewrite rules, they deal with the rules set by the developer as well as the variance that comes with additions. All you're arguing for is preference which, as a result, has lead to ridiculous wait times, poor aesthetics and an environment where you can beat up on low ranks to boost your own egos.

Skilled players don't create deserts to increase the frequency of getting low ranked players. They create healthy environments, without fear of dealing with new challenges.

Being the start player in a game of CoB (chosen randomly) gives you a greater chance of getting the OP tile. And an equal chance is not the same as an equal opportunity. The former rewards luck, whereas the latter allows for skill.

Also, no one is dictating anything here. We’re merely arguing the case for our own preferences, as are you.

And yet you're creating an environment where you get increased luck of being matched with players that have less skill than you do, in a scenario where 'luck' won't balance out in the long term.

New game comes out, immediately take to the forums whining about a tile you can't deal with, get the admin to change things, farm people with lack of experience and feel better about yourself.

I've got news for you, this isn't how skill nor competition works.

[Silene]

All you're arguing for is preference which, as a result, has lead to ridiculous wait times, poor aesthetics and an environment where you can beat up on low ranks to boost your own egos.

a) wait times: Why do you assume wait times would be better on 2019-version? You have no evidence to back up your claim that First edition has CAUSED wait time.

b) aesthetics: it's exactly the same aesthetics in either version if you want it to be. People have hinted at this before - Please look out for the checkbox to tick to use new edition graphics always. It even saves the setting if you checked it once. You don't need to suffer from old edition graphics