Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
No I allowed 3 or 4 players - but one would think if it matched a 3 player game it would choose the right size map!
Since it is possible to play a 3 players on a for player map (without any major drawbacks) and a lot of people enjoy it, we included this possiblility in our matchmaker. Sure it is not as "competetive" when there is more space avilable to settle on but we get very little to non negative feedback about that. I guess a lot of pleople like to expand when playing Catan :)
Fair enough. However, I would suggest (having an option) to adjust balance (e.g. VP needed for win) for those games. In many cases the outcome is determined early, but it still takes an age to complete. Or see my next post...
I'm going to call this out as BS, How many people are choosing 3 player maps and 4 players or vice versa? Can you give stats?
At the very least, if you opt for 3 OR 4 players it should match the correct map size. People who WANT a tedious predictable final 40 minutes of game play can elect to do that by NOT specifying 3or4 player game and selecting the scenario they want - I bet they'll wait a while for a match ;-)