Board Game Arena

I would like to know why most multiplayer games are now 2p in arena? Some of them just dont play well as 2 player.

Take TTR for instance. It is a KNOWN fact that for 2p games the 1st person wins 65-70% of the time. This fact is from DoW records. So having an 2p arena game tips the balance to the first person quite a bit.

I suspect there are others. So would like to know why the 2p games when there are quite a few 2p only games here on BGA.

Overall (not TTR specifically) 3 or more players introduces a strong kingmaking aspect, where I know I may not be able to beat player A, but if I sabatoge player B, i can come in second. Player B ends up "ganged up on".

For many games, getting 2 players takes a long time, getting 3 is almost impossible.

Is there any way to see the total number of arena games? (in general, or per game)

I wonder if there are fewer arena games in general these days. I know there were some complaints after changes where you get penalized for playing the same opponents, yet you cannot avoid them in Arena, for obvious reasons.

Suoivax wrote: ↑22 July 2024, 14:22 Overall (not TTR specifically) 3 or more players introduces a strong kingmaking aspect, where I know I may not be able to beat player A, but if I sabatoge player B, i can come in second. Player B ends up "ganged up on".

This is not kingmaking, sabotage, or ganging up. Improving one's own position is normal play.

cofunguy wrote: ↑22 July 2024, 14:00 I would like to know why most multiplayer games are now 2p in arena? Some of them just dont play well as 2 player.

Take TTR for instance. It is a KNOWN fact that for 2p games the 1st person wins 65-70% of the time. This fact is from DoW records. So having an 2p arena game tips the balance to the first person quite a bit.

I suspect there are others. So would like to know why the 2p games when there are quite a few 2p only games here on BGA.

There's an obvious first turn advantage in Ticket To Ride's rules, though I wasn't aware of what the typical win percentage was, but I'll take your word for it. Unless there's a rule change when you play with more than 2 players to affect it, a lot of the same advantages are still present with a greater number of players. Though the natural abuses of playing with more than 2 players can probably overturn it easier. The functional reason why most arena games are 2p is of course that's what was voted on.

If you're asking why players would prefer 2 players, there are plenty of reasons. For starters, getting games started is usually easier since you only need to get 1 opponent. Also, the games play faster because turn cycles are only between 2 players, the impact of which only gets more significant in turn-based games, especially any with reactive elements where multiple players might be taking actions on a given player's turn. In 2 players you get to play against 1 opponent, rather than getting ganged up on by multiple players, whether it be intentional and malicious (kingmaking or other cheating), intentional if reasonable (you're playing better and are ahead, so you must be punished by other players to keep you in check), intentional but unreasonable (you're getting attacked for bad reasons because your opponents don't know what they're doing), or straight up unintentional (multiple players are beating up on you by accident, not even realizing how they're affecting you). This causes player skill to be more of a factor in 2 player games than with a greater number of players.

I don't like this change at all, please change it back to how it was.
IMO, 2p TTR is dreadful. Theres a first player advantage, The board is too open and it just becomes a race to finish the game first.

I have the opposite complaint. I *hate* turn based 3pl Super Mega Lucky! And there I think is the crux of the issue. I think most of us play turned based and waiting for each player to take a day to take a turn drags games badly and makes them no fun.

in SML 3pl turn based, each player only gets to cross of one box per turn, thereby making a 10 minute fast paced, fun game becomes a 10 day boring tedious drag to play. I would never play again if SML could only be played this way.

2pl turn based at least gives the players 2 numbers per turn to cross off.

So this season, SML is off my list to play on arena. Oh well, that is life. Sometimes you let things go because you cant change them and the mental health toll of hanging on to the stress or anger or disappointment, whatever negative feeling I am having, is just not worth it.

Boardgaming is suppoed to be fun and relaxing so any experience that isn't just has to be put out of my life

nanospy wrote: ↑23 July 2024, 14:06

Suoivax wrote: ↑22 July 2024, 14:22 Overall (not TTR specifically) 3 or more players introduces a strong kingmaking aspect, where I know I may not be able to beat player A, but if I sabatoge player B, i can come in second. Player B ends up "ganged up on".

This is not kingmaking, sabotage, or ganging up. Improving one's own position is normal play.

Semantics... the decision could have zero benifit to me (player C) but be the deciding factor between player A and B winning or not. I am then kingmaking.

Sharley23 wrote: ↑23 July 2024, 16:59please change it back to how it was.

To whom exactly are you directing this request? This decision is locked in for this season and isn't going to change. You can play an absurd number of games of whichever game you're dissatisfied with and become a guru to vote for the settings for next season. You'll only have one vote, but you'll be able to argue your case to other gurus.

Actually, for really unpopular games, you can become a guru with only a handful of completed games. Sometimes just one!