Arena config...

[flolem]

I don't know if there was already Guru on this game..
but arena is supposed to be competitive so why keeping the assymetrical empires ? which is less balanced and for beginner... and so less competitive.

on another note, the number of players should be either 2 players (more tight competition for me) or 4 players (best configuration)

[Malard]

the asymmetric is very frustrating in terms of the overpower / under power of some of the nations. 3 is fine, but would prefer 2 or more

[Superfab94]

I agree,
This configuration is so random you don't see anyone in the top ranking playing in Arena. I play 3 times, won one, lose one and the last I was second, and I loose 35 ELO points !
I'm ok to play at 3, even if I prefer to play at two, but I will never play it again in asymétric mode.
Fab

[sorryimlikethis]

No gurus as the game just came out of beta. I'm not sure how the arena settings were decided but yeah... one I won't be participating in. Too late for it to be changed now. Hopefully we can vote next season symmetric

[Frogodo]

As the "winner" of the first arena season (Very annoyed it didn't count), I'd love to see 4 players. Variable empires does keep it fresh, but symmetric would make sense for a switch for next season. Looking at how all the other games treat their arenas, I wouldn't be surprised if it drops to 2 players, although I don't think two players is as good for a drafting game.

[sorryimlikethis]

As the "winner" of the first arena season (Very annoyed it didn't count), I'd love to see 4 players. Variable empires does keep it fresh, but symmetric would make sense for a switch for next season. Looking at how all the other games treat their arenas, I wouldn't be surprised if it drops to 2 players, although I don't think two players is as good for a drafting game.

I think the game is equally fun at all player counts. I enjoy playing at any player count.
From a competitive standpoint 2 player is the only player count that makes sense. There's a reason very few people are above 500 ELO and it's because most people play 3-4 player.

2p offers
-More card choice (10 per hand vs 7 per hand). You actually get to decide your last card out of 3 as opposed to getting the worst card back.
-You get to see hands multiple times and can plan for the draft accordingly. In a 4p game you only get to see the 4th hand once? You can't plan around that, there's so much luck. In a 2 player game after seeing the 2nd hand I know exactly how many white discards there are, what scoring cards there are, etc.
-No colour imbalances. 3 player game and 2 people are going yellow and 1 going blue. Pretty big advantage to the blue player.

Don't even get me started on Variable. How this made it to arena I will never understand. The game designers have said multiple times this is not how the game is supposed to be played, it's used as an introduction to the game. If you have a bad opening draft in variable you instantly lose.

[jsnoop36]

I completely agree that arena should be two-player and even more importantly symmetric, if it is intended to be competitive. Asymmetric is only for introductory purposes and there are pairings that are just not winnable (if you don't start with any white and your opponent does, it's nearly impossible to win on many initial sets of cards). It should not be used competitively. And multi-player, while still a great game, is not as pure from a competitive standpoint, as the zero-sum nature of the game is changed significantly and there is much more randomness (mostly from no longer having 10 cards from which you have to choose 7). I was curious about joining arena this season and trying to win it, until I saw asymmetric and that that was not changeable. Accordingly, I for sure will not be joining.

[Frogodo]

I mean I feel like you guys are thinking in like a tournament mindset and not a season long mindset. There's a reason me and ramenkuitai are consistently at the top of the standings despite playing all the time. I've found there are all sorts of ways to win and yeah sometimes you just get unlucky and your opponent starts with world congress in their hand in round 4. But over the long run you will win more than you lose. I'm very good at eeking out an extra point or two doing weird things to generate gems that don't seem obvious to do at all. I just spent 1:30 calculating out the exact resources to be able to finish a tank division for 1 point. I won by 20. But some day that 1 point will matter. I've won games by basically just heavily hate drafting. And you can absolutely plan for the last card you are given. I take a screenshot of all the hands the first time I see them and review to see what I'm likely to get back and plan based on that. Honestly it would be boring with symmetric at this point because there aren't enough high level players so I'd just be winning all the time, whereas sometimes I stomp everyone and sometimes I have to work really hard to get science to work to recover from a much worse player with better luck. In 3 months when more people are good players, symmetric would make a lot more sense. I still hate 2 player drafting games, at that point you aren't calculating cool combs, you're calculating how to stop your opponent, which just isn't as much fun.

[sorryimlikethis]

I mean I feel like you guys are thinking in like a tournament mindset and not a season long mindset. There's a reason me and ramenkuitai are consistently at the top of the standings despite playing all the time. I've found there are all sorts of ways to win and yeah sometimes you just get unlucky and your opponent starts with world congress in their hand in round 4. But over the long run you will win more than you lose. I'm very good at eeking out an extra point or two doing weird things to generate gems that don't seem obvious to do at all. I just spent 1:30 calculating out the exact resources to be able to finish a tank division for 1 point. I won by 20. But some day that 1 point will matter. I've won games by basically just heavily hate drafting. And you can absolutely plan for the last card you are given. I take a screenshot of all the hands the first time I see them and review to see what I'm likely to get back and plan based on that. Honestly it would be boring with symmetric at this point because there aren't enough high level players so I'd just be winning all the time, whereas sometimes I stomp everyone and sometimes I have to work really hard to get science to work to recover from a much worse player with better luck. In 3 months when more people are good players, symmetric would make a lot more sense. I still hate 2 player drafting games, at that point you aren't calculating cool combs, you're calculating how to stop your opponent, which just isn't as much fun.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, I can see you're a good player. But arena's only been out for 2 weeks and a majority of the top 10 players aren't competing in it. The ones that have, like miyabi, have already dropped significantly because you can't sustain a high ELO with that much randomness. I think we're all in agreement there is still skill in 3p games and in variable empires. It is just less than 2p symmetric. You and ramen are both 1 loss away from being knocked down to 3rd and 2 bad losses away from being knocked out of the top 10. That's not exactly dominant (and I would not expect anyone, even myself, to have a dominant lead in arena with these settings).

Everything you described is why I love It's a Wonderful World. There are many different avenues to victory and you can get small advantages by playing unconventionally. What you are describing is why symmetric is a better game mode. You get to make a decision on your direction after seeing the opening few hands so you can choose the path you think is best.

There's no "well I got Aztec this game, I guess I'm going a mix of blue/generals".
... "except the entire round 1 draft has no black cards and so much yellow production, I guess I lose".

[funkdoc]

The discussion on variable empires is interesting to me because i come from a fighting game background and the asymmetry between characters is my favorite part of that genre. i think the issue with applying that concept to Eurogames is not being able to freely choose your "character" but instead getting randomly stuck with one - 7 Wonders has the same problem and that's part of why i got tired of that game. Something like Race for the Galaxy with the New Worlds and/or Gathering Storm is already much more enjoyable for me, and that just gives you 2 random starting worlds to choose between. Someday i'd like to see one of these games on BGA have a full character select like a fighting game...

Anyway, all this is to add another vote for 2-player with the generic empire for Arena!