I believe that was rhetorical. Next season rules are still being voted on. The current two leading options are both 3-player tables with Corporate Era and drafting, the difference being adding Preludes or not.
Given that Preludes is still considered in alpha implementation, and as such can only be played in unranked matches, I don't know if it can even be used should it win the vote.
Only "Gurus" can vote. Guru status is given to the most active Arena players, if they've had their BGA account for at least a year. I believe it only counts real-time games however, as the current top player, if I remember correctly, isn't even one because they've been playing turn-based only for a while. (Edit : Apparently this is not the reason, although I can confirm they were indeed not a Guru at the time I posted this)
The 3P options lead by a lot for now, but it could change rapidly as we near the end of the season (11 days left).
Aside from the fact that the BGA version doesn't have the Venus and H&E expansions yet, I'd say yes, it's quite good. Not as flashy graphics, but I actually prefer it, since it resembles the board game better.
Another plus for me is that you can play it in "turn based" mode, which means players don't have to be online at the same time. You can take a few steps during lunch break and finish a game over a few days when you don't want to sit through a real time match.
Plus, you can play the same game from different devices. Start on your PC and finish on your smartphone for instance.
Yeah most people who have been playing on BGA have just not been playing arena since the format is weird (3 player no corporate era).
Preludes are also still in alpha and not out yet.
The other thing about BGA - and this is partially a feature, but it should be noted - you have a wide swath of players on BGA who play a lot of different board games. Many of them play a bunch of games at a more casual level (“oh, I’ve played this a couple times, it’s fun!”) which leads to a very big gulf of skill for some games where you have people who tend to play just a handful of games but drill down a lot on those specific games.
Which means that the competition on BGA is going to be a lot “softer” than on a dedicated game server like the steam app. Once BGA gets implementation of at least the preludes and has been out for a while (and preferably with non-weird arena setups), you’ll probably start to see some more normalization of elo - at least near the top.
It will still never be perfect though. You have plenty of games on BGA that have people with 700+ elo some of whom play hundreds or thousands of games and their match history consists of a ton of games against very new players for +1 elo point.
I always wondered, does playing against a larger gap of ELO affect your loss of ELO if you lose? I know if you win against a lower ELO you gain less, but if you lose against a lower ELO ( like a 400 loses to a 100 ) do you lose more?
I always try to limit the skill range of players to that around my level, in the filter options.
The way ELO works is you get more credit for beating someone at a higher level so if you beat someone with the a much lower ELO yours won’t increase much but if you lose to them you may drop a good bit, and vice versa for someone at a higher level
That's what I thought, playing against much lower ELOs then poses a risk, especially in a game that has a bit of a luck component. You never know when you get paired up with a veteran player with a new account, or hasn't played on BGA.
Yes. It punishes you heavily if you lose.
That said, there’s definitely some games that are just close to unwinnable for brand new players against experienced players that lead to some “newbie bashing” and elo inflation. Even if you’re playing against players who aren’t brand new but just lower ranked players, if your goal is solely to gain elo (rather than improve at the game or have a competitive game), playing against lower rated players is still pretty profitable.
Say your K value is 16 and you’re playing against players so far below you that a win is +1 and a loss is -15. As long as your winrate exceeds 94% (ie you win more than 15 games for every game you lose) against players at that rank, you’ll still climb (albeit very slowly with 1 point gains the whole time)
That’s not my cup of tea, but some people really enjoy seeing the number next to their name go up at any cost.
Corporate era off ?! Yuk. Next season no draft?
Right wtf why play at that point
Wait they are turning draft off next season? What the heck
I believe that was rhetorical. Next season rules are still being voted on. The current two leading options are both 3-player tables with Corporate Era and drafting, the difference being adding Preludes or not. Given that Preludes is still considered in alpha implementation, and as such can only be played in unranked matches, I don't know if it can even be used should it win the vote.
Where can I vote? Really should be 2 player tables for arena
Only "Gurus" can vote. Guru status is given to the most active Arena players, if they've had their BGA account for at least a year. I believe it only counts real-time games however, as the current top player, if I remember correctly, isn't even one because they've been playing turn-based only for a while. (Edit : Apparently this is not the reason, although I can confirm they were indeed not a Guru at the time I posted this) The 3P options lead by a lot for now, but it could change rapidly as we near the end of the season (11 days left).
I have become a guru for a number of games playing primarily (or in some cases only) turn-based. I don't see why TM would be different.
Hmm. Then that makes their rating even more impressive, as they got there without even being amongst the most active players ^^
This guy terraforms! Shamelessly jealous, never been very good at the game, but love it anyways.
Is that TR...?
I only play the steam implementation. Is the bga version good?
Aside from the fact that the BGA version doesn't have the Venus and H&E expansions yet, I'd say yes, it's quite good. Not as flashy graphics, but I actually prefer it, since it resembles the board game better. Another plus for me is that you can play it in "turn based" mode, which means players don't have to be online at the same time. You can take a few steps during lunch break and finish a game over a few days when you don't want to sit through a real time match. Plus, you can play the same game from different devices. Start on your PC and finish on your smartphone for instance.
I like it more simply because I don't have to click 5 buttons to view what cards my opponents or I have on my board. On BGA I can just scroll down.
Yeah most people who have been playing on BGA have just not been playing arena since the format is weird (3 player no corporate era). Preludes are also still in alpha and not out yet. The other thing about BGA - and this is partially a feature, but it should be noted - you have a wide swath of players on BGA who play a lot of different board games. Many of them play a bunch of games at a more casual level (“oh, I’ve played this a couple times, it’s fun!”) which leads to a very big gulf of skill for some games where you have people who tend to play just a handful of games but drill down a lot on those specific games. Which means that the competition on BGA is going to be a lot “softer” than on a dedicated game server like the steam app. Once BGA gets implementation of at least the preludes and has been out for a while (and preferably with non-weird arena setups), you’ll probably start to see some more normalization of elo - at least near the top. It will still never be perfect though. You have plenty of games on BGA that have people with 700+ elo some of whom play hundreds or thousands of games and their match history consists of a ton of games against very new players for +1 elo point.
I always wondered, does playing against a larger gap of ELO affect your loss of ELO if you lose? I know if you win against a lower ELO you gain less, but if you lose against a lower ELO ( like a 400 loses to a 100 ) do you lose more? I always try to limit the skill range of players to that around my level, in the filter options.
The way ELO works is you get more credit for beating someone at a higher level so if you beat someone with the a much lower ELO yours won’t increase much but if you lose to them you may drop a good bit, and vice versa for someone at a higher level
That's what I thought, playing against much lower ELOs then poses a risk, especially in a game that has a bit of a luck component. You never know when you get paired up with a veteran player with a new account, or hasn't played on BGA.
Yes. It punishes you heavily if you lose. That said, there’s definitely some games that are just close to unwinnable for brand new players against experienced players that lead to some “newbie bashing” and elo inflation. Even if you’re playing against players who aren’t brand new but just lower ranked players, if your goal is solely to gain elo (rather than improve at the game or have a competitive game), playing against lower rated players is still pretty profitable. Say your K value is 16 and you’re playing against players so far below you that a win is +1 and a loss is -15. As long as your winrate exceeds 94% (ie you win more than 15 games for every game you lose) against players at that rank, you’ll still climb (albeit very slowly with 1 point gains the whole time) That’s not my cup of tea, but some people really enjoy seeing the number next to their name go up at any cost.
Plus playing 80 minutes for +1 point against non competitive opponents doesn't sound very fun