Another Arena season, another boring set of factions

[ChiefPointThief]

You misunderstand the nature of specialization in both games, chess and TM! 96%+ of your core skill instantly tranalates 1:1 to new variants. Wesley So has a classical rating of like 2700, so he can jump over the 2775's at 960. But if you gave me (1500) 7 years to prepare a novel "pawns can jump" chess variant against So, he would sit down and beat me just as easily as any other chess variant (very easily)
Most TM decisions come down to weighing one pile of stuff vs another, and the types of considerations are the same whether you're playing dwarves or conspirators. You can't really even get good at a single faction like you can get good at a single chess opening. Like play one game with each fan faction and your arena ability should be about the same whether FF are on/off

You tackled some of my points so I'll leave this be

I feel the same way.
Constant changes in Arena is why I stopped playing TM on BGA in the first place. I agree that Arena should be the default setting of a game, otherwise it becomes so overwhelming for "casual" arena players.
For me, the never ending change between maps and settings every season was already too much.
So now adding fan factions? So quite literally something that is (by definition) not even part of the real game? I mean come on...

I don't understand this hatred that some have towards changes, the more varied the game, the less monotonous it is, right? And even less do I understand the hatred towards the Fan Factions: they are having a test with thousands of games that the historical factions at the time of their publication, inevitably, could not have, so once they finish filing them (but perhaps already now with the updates they have had) they will be much more balanced than the 'old' factions which in fact had to resort to Special Weighings to rebalance. Playing with the Fakirs or with the Darklings is certainly not the same thing...

But arena is a competitive setting, and at some part there is something as too much change and variety that will hurt the quality and ability to learn and master the game. Extreme example: do you think a chess world championship would be so hotly contested and well-regarded if every time they make some changes. They start off with just classical chess, then after a while they introduce a queen that can move as a knight in addition to all moves, next year we play a no-castling world championship, the year after we actually play chess960 to add variety. Oh let's play on a 7x7 board and remove the queens, ......

I don't think the addition of fan factions should be equated to playing an entirely different game like listed above. I would say this is more comparable to a fighting game that gets new downloadable characters. Those characters are then incorporated into the competitive scene. Also to the people using stability as their reason for not wanting fan factions how is the current format "stable". I would say having more characters and the same rules is more stable than less factions and constant changes to the rules.

[Alloran]

There are games that haven't changed in hundreds of years (for example, chess) and there are games that are constantly changing by design (for example, Magic: the Gathering), and there is an enormous spectrum of games inbetween. Both of them have tournaments (and I have participated in many of each), both of them have passionate fans, and neither design is right or wrong. It's entirely up to your opinion which one you like; it's not like you can mathematically calculate an objectively perfect degree of variation and speed of change over time.

I simply find it personally baffling that so many people that play Terra Mystica come down so far on the side of keeping it static rather than dynamic. Even those people who have stated their reasons, I just don't find the stated reasons compelling in the slightest, when weighed against how much more interesting the game is with more factions added. But I understand that this opinion is in the minority, I'm just whinging about it I suppose.

Perhaps it's because I've been playing Magic semi-competitively since childhood, but I expect tournaments to be different every time, that's a feature, not a bug. There is nothing worse than a format that gets stale, and it's one of the things that make TM a great game that whenever things get stale, you can add new things to change it up while still keeping the core game the same, and it even has a built-in mechanic (the auction) to keep things fair if the things that are introduced are a little unbalanced!

An arena season only lasts a few months, and TM has been around for almost a decade, so I just genuinely don't understand the impulse to keep it pretty much the same as it has been for that decade, and not even try shaking it up. Let those people who absolutely can't stand the idea of adding new factions sit out a single season, and let the rest of us have a turn and see what happens. If it sucks and everyone stops playing, change it back.

[ChiefPointThief]

There are games that haven't changed in hundreds of years (for example, chess) and there are games that are constantly changing by design (for example, Magic: the Gathering), and there is an enormous spectrum of games inbetween. Both of them have tournaments (and I have participated in many of each), both of them have passionate fans, and neither design is right or wrong. It's entirely up to your opinion which one you like; it's not like you can mathematically calculate an objectively perfect degree of variation and speed of change over time.

I simply find it personally baffling that so many people that play Terra Mystica come down so far on the side of keeping it static rather than dynamic. Even those people who have stated their reasons, I just don't find the stated reasons compelling in the slightest, when weighed against how much more interesting the game is with more factions added. But I understand that this opinion is in the minority, I'm just whinging about it I suppose.

A lot of people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. What I don't understand are the people who are trying to put terra mystica in the chess bracket when clearly the vast majority of players want to play the game with additions that were implemented after the original release. Whether it be maps, mini expansion, f&I scoring, or auction. This is a game that clearly gets better with additions overtime.

A lot of players don't share your enthusiasm for the variable, fire, and ice mechanics?

Personally I also don't like the Fire and Ice factions, since they add and change the game up quite a lot. They're distinct from the regular factions, and now the fan factions, who all follow the same terraforming rules. Variable factions and Fire factions in particular are quite strange in how they expand and play. I'm happy for all those that like them, but I don't think it should be shocking many in the community don't like them.

Every faction has an ability that separates them from the rest. That is what makes them unique and special. Unless they are overpowered I don't think not liking ones ability should disqualify them from play. I despise darklings (not as much since the addition of new factions but in the base game they are picked almost every game) but they are here to stay. They also can terraform in a way in which no other faction can (w/ priest) yet they are a fan favorite. This same logic can be applied to several base factions. Fakirs/flying? Dwarves/tunneling? Witches/teleporting?

[donkeykong66]

There are games that haven't changed in hundreds of years (for example, chess) and there are games that are constantly changing by design (for example, Magic: the Gathering), and there is an enormous spectrum of games inbetween. Both of them have tournaments (and I have participated in many of each), both of them have passionate fans, and neither design is right or wrong. It's entirely up to your opinion which one you like; it's not like you can mathematically calculate an objectively perfect degree of variation and speed of change over time.

I simply find it personally baffling that so many people that play Terra Mystica come down so far on the side of keeping it static rather than dynamic. Even those people who have stated their reasons, I just don't find the stated reasons compelling in the slightest, when weighed against how much more interesting the game is with more factions added. But I understand that this opinion is in the minority, I'm just whinging about it I suppose.

A lot of people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. What I don't understand are the people who are trying to put terra mystica in the chess bracket when clearly the vast majority of players want to play the game with additions that were implemented after the original release. Whether it be maps, mini expansion, f&I scoring, or auction. This is a game that clearly gets better with additions overtime.

A lot of players don't share your enthusiasm for the variable, fire, and ice mechanics?

Personally I also don't like the Fire and Ice factions, since they add and change the game up quite a lot. They're distinct from the regular factions, and now the fan factions, who all follow the same terraforming rules. Variable factions and Fire factions in particular are quite strange in how they expand and play. I'm happy for all those that like them, but I don't think it should be shocking many in the community don't like them.

Every faction has an ability that separates them from the rest. That is what makes them unique and special. Unless they are overpowered I don't think not liking ones ability should disqualify them from play. I despise darklings (not as much since the addition of new factions but in the base game they are picked almost every game) but they are here to stay. They also can terraform in a way in which no other faction can (w/ priest) yet they are a fan favorite. This same logic can be applied to several base factions. Fakirs/flying? Dwarves/tunneling? Witches/teleporting?

Regarding your first point: I think the whole premise of this thread (and it being so active) is that there isn't a vast majority agreeing on whether or not expansions make the game better. I think for mini expansions there is indeed major concensus and that's why I think almost every game played these days will include them. For some other settings I think the player base is much more divided. Sure it's not as static as chess, but also by and far not as old, chess has undergone changes through the years too. But I don't think anyone in the chess world will argue that duck chess (or whatever variants get created these days) make the game better and should become default options.

As for your second point: people aren't addressing the unique abilities of each faction, but their influence on how the game is played. Particularly fire factions have an ability to dig 5/6 hexes in round 1, which none of the normal colored factions generally can. In addition once transformed to fire / ice, a hex can never be transformed to anything else again, giving these faction security over hexes nobody else can. In addition, the fires factions ability to transform hexes (nearly) identical regardless of color means they're much more disruptive than any other regular faction is.

[Ranior]

DonkeyKong nailed the points I would make, but I'll just chime in that I agree with him. FI factions, particularly volcano and variable, interact and expand in very different ways than base game factions.

To me, the color wheel and spades are kind of a fundamental concept for Terra Mystica, as is home terrain. Most factions really want to get on their free home hexes and that is part of how you predict and understand what they will do. FI factions mostly don't have this, and so they are in an entirely different camp. It's fine if you like that and want to play with it, but trying to argue they are simply different versions/ideas of base games factions feels very disingenuous.

[RicardoRix]

It's fine if you like that and want to play with it, but trying to argue they are simply different versions/ideas of base games factions feels very disingenuous.

If the new clans were all the same as the base clans, then there wouldn't be much point in having them. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

Even the base game Terra Mystica embraces the fact that different clans/abilities can play together in one game. And competitively that's what the auction feature is for.

[ChiefPointThief]

There are games that haven't changed in hundreds of years (for example, chess) and there are games that are constantly changing by design (for example, Magic: the Gathering), and there is an enormous spectrum of games inbetween. Both of them have tournaments (and I have participated in many of each), both of them have passionate fans, and neither design is right or wrong. It's entirely up to your opinion which one you like; it's not like you can mathematically calculate an objectively perfect degree of variation and speed of change over time.

I simply find it personally baffling that so many people that play Terra Mystica come down so far on the side of keeping it static rather than dynamic. Even those people who have stated their reasons, I just don't find the stated reasons compelling in the slightest, when weighed against how much more interesting the game is with more factions added. But I understand that this opinion is in the minority, I'm just whinging about it I suppose.

A lot of people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. What I don't understand are the people who are trying to put terra mystica in the chess bracket when clearly the vast majority of players want to play the game with additions that were implemented after the original release. Whether it be maps, mini expansion, f&I scoring, or auction. This is a game that clearly gets better with additions overtime.

A lot of players don't share your enthusiasm for the variable, fire, and ice mechanics?

Personally I also don't like the Fire and Ice factions, since they add and change the game up quite a lot. They're distinct from the regular factions, and now the fan factions, who all follow the same terraforming rules. Variable factions and Fire factions in particular are quite strange in how they expand and play. I'm happy for all those that like them, but I don't think it should be shocking many in the community don't like them.

Every faction has an ability that separates them from the rest. That is what makes them unique and special. Unless they are overpowered I don't think not liking ones ability should disqualify them from play. I despise darklings (not as much since the addition of new factions but in the base game they are picked almost every game) but they are here to stay. They also can terraform in a way in which no other faction can (w/ priest) yet they are a fan favorite. This same logic can be applied to several base factions. Fakirs/flying? Dwarves/tunneling? Witches/teleporting?

Regarding your first point: I think the whole premise of this thread (and it being so active) is that there isn't a vast majority agreeing on whether or not expansions make the game better. I think for mini expansions there is indeed major concensus and that's why I think almost every game played these days will include them. For some other settings I think the player base is much more decided. Sure it's not as static as chess, but also by and far not as old, chess has undergone changes through the years too. But I don't think anyone in the chess world will argue that duck chess (or whatever variants get created these days) make the game better and should become default options.

As for your second point: people aren't addressing the unique abilities of each faction, but their influence on how the game is played. Particularly fire factions have an ability to dig 5/6 hexes in round 1, which none of the normal colored factions generally can. In addition once transformed to fire / ice, a hex can never be transformed to anything else again, giving these faction security over hexes nobody else can. In addition, the fires factions ability to transform hexes (nearly) identical regardless of color means they're much more disruptive than any other regular faction is.

Let's be honest. We all like terra mystica that is why we are here but the base game is flawed. Fire and Ice introduced many things. I think that most people will agree that the introduction of the auction phase was good for the game. Mini expansions are an expansion which for the most part everyone enjoys. That is my point. So I think we are saying the same thing. My comment was targeted to the people here acting as if terra mystica needs to stay pure and true to the original release when most players enjoy and agree that some things introduced after the original release enhanced the experience of this game. Fan factions are the latest addition to the tm world that enhances the experience (yes i am aware that people disagree on what additions are good for the game). So I am dispelling the notion that this community must remain static because if it were we would all be playing with base settings. Once again the topic at hand is the addition of factions into competitive play and you compared that to chess and duck chess. How does swapping swarmlings for wisp or engineers for dynion turn this into duck chess? The rules are the same. So why do people keep making this comparison?

Ok. Lets talk about f&i factions without landscapes first. I think the first issue at hand is are they too strong? Based off the adjusted started vp none of them are elite except for riverwalkers on the lakes map. It appears that your biggest gripe is with fire. They can dig 5/6x first round. There are several factions that can get out multiple dwellings under certain circumstances 1st rd. Mermaids are probably the biggest culprit. Should we ban them? Also the fire factions can do this but at what cost? The dl will burn all their power acolytes need a priest and lose all their cult points. And the dl only start with 4 workers. Also fire cannot dig on anyone's home terrain or it cost more. So in a game with no other f&i factions the dl only start with 8 power and must use 2 to build on any 3 of the factions types that are in the game.

I see too often riverwalkers opening with ambitious starts. In a lot of games they can be blocked from connecting in these circumstances but players don't do it. They also only start with 2 power so if you deny them an early priest it significantly slows them down. Most likely they aren't getting many cult points or cult bonuses. The shapeshifters have the cultists affect where I think players are unsure if the other players will accept power so they both end up accepting (there should be some rule about player to the right must act for or something because a lot of times both players are waiting to see how the other reacts ). If you don't accept shapeshifters power you limit them. Shapeshifters also follow the same terraforming rules as base factions.

Ice may be my favorite pair of factions in the game. Hence why I would like them included. It does feel like most people that are against f&i factions have the least problem with ice but unfortunately they are lumped together with fire and variable. Ice cannot ship and build on other ice hexes early on like every other faction can. They can't even dig towards another one of there terrain hexes because they have no home terrain. I think that the benefit of having a hex no one else can use after you terraform it is not that advantageous considering the disadvantage of having no home terrain and maybe they can't even build at the moment because poor ice has to use all of their resources to dig when others have free hexes. Upgrading spade cost is slightly cheaper but you are still paying a min. of 2 workers to build a dwelling. Conclusion they may be different from the base factions when it comes to terraforming but all of them have weaknesses.

[Ranior]

It's fine if you like that and want to play with it, but trying to argue they are simply different versions/ideas of base games factions feels very disingenuous.

If the new clans were all the same as the base clans, then there wouldn't be much point in having them. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

Even the base game Terra Mystica embraces the fact that different clans/abilities can play together in one game. And competitively that's what the auction feature is for.

You're missing the point.

The fan factions expansion has shown how you could have added a lot more factions to the game that work within the base mechanics just fine.

Those of us that don't like FI are telling you that it becomes a different game for us. The base game factions all:
Have a home terrain they want to expand to so they can build on it for free
Use spades to terraform hexes to their color
Must build on a hex to claim it for themselves, otherwise it can be changed by others

FI factions break all these fundamental rules that every other base faction and fan faction follow.

Many enjoy these changes, and that's fine if you do. But while the poster above me more or less argues that more expansions = more better, not everyone has to see it that way. Yes most of the community has embraced the mini expansions, variable turn order, and auction. That doesn't neccessarily mean FI factions should be embraced either--they are a much bigger change to the game, and it should not be shocking that people don't like them.

I'm sure if Merchants ever gets added to BGA plenty will love it and want to play with it as well, but there will be another subset that just does not enjoy it. It should be very easy to conceive that some future expansion could be made to Terra Mystica that would no longer make you enjoy it.

Please note I'm not arguing FI factions are too strong. I'm not arguing they should never be included in arena. I'm simply here defending the very simple idea that some in the community don't like FI factions and why, and why that's a valid thing. What should arena be is a lot harder question, and while I have opinions on that, I don't much care honestly. I still think most TM players would be a lot better off ignoring arena completely and just making simple games with the settings they want. (I also think the community would be better off if Terra Mystica had less options, but that's a battle I've long since lost as we're clearly not going to be removing things, so oh well).

TLDR; Some of you seem to be pretty set on the idea that since an expansion exists, we should adopt it and play with it. That's why the comparison to chess and chess variants keeps coming up by the way--some of us simply are trying to tell you that we don't agree that more stuff = more better, and we've chosen to draw the line at what feels like "Terra Mystica" to us at a certain point. For me, that's FI factions--it now feels like another game, one I'm far less interested in.

[RicardoRix]

That's also why you can change the settings each season. You can switch between base and expansions. Keep everyone happy. Why does it just have to be the base game?

Just to add to the 'competitive' argument. I've never played beyond the base clans, yet in Arena I can put up a good fight with experts. Throw in the other clans and I'd be next to useless. So if you really want to make the environment where the best player is the player that knows the most about TM and can play with all the different factions and still win, then you need to add more factions. For the time being I'll happily trip you all up with just my base game knowledge.

[Alloran]

That's also why you can change the settings each season. You can switch between base and expansions. Keep everyone happy. Why does it just have to be the base game?

Yeah that's the main thing. I totally get that some people prefer base game, other people prefer the expansions. I'm not judging which is better. It's just frustrating that half of people get what they want all the time, and half of people get what they want none of the time, rather than just changing it up every once in a while so that everyone is happy.

As it is, instead of playing arena in the seasons that I like the settings, I just don't play arena at all, ever.