jhaelen said:

Never said I had proof. If you would have read my post you'd know that 'proove' is unachieveable. All I can give are reasonable arguments that are based on simple facts, not on opinions. Also I aknowledged that 2P offers more variety and flexbility, which is what your were basically reciting in more detailed manner. The fact that more mistakes can be made and that you get double the chance of a critical blowout are a counterweight to the advantages of 2P, which is also a fact. Now you could argue by how far of a margin. I say its close even, which is an opinion indeed. You can have a different one, but I have arguments based on facts to back it up.

Also: This is an example of OMG someone is wrong on the internets!1 Put this into perspective: I was initially replying to a review of the game which stated that 1P is too difficult and luck based. In contrast to that I gave reasonable arguments on why its not, so that someone who maybe wants to pick up the game for solo play gets a different, more sophisticated picture, because honestly, most reviews these days are full of crap.

If you feel like you need to go all out witty ("glorious scientific proof") on me for trying to be objective on something, go ahead, I dont give a ****- hostility merely makes me quit the thread. And no, I was not beeing hostile nor offensive with stating that most people dont get the fundamentals on science. It has nothing to do with a lack of intellect whatsoever, it is just a very unaccustomed perspective that is entirely different from how we humans perceive reality.

It is an okay game as a solo game, if you are really into LOTR. It is a good 2-player game, and it is a tough challenge sometimes. It makes a very fun and great game when played with 3 or 4 players.

I play occasionally 2 players with my wife. Most of the time I play it at 3 or 4 players, and it is great fun - we each play one sphere and work together - lots of fun.

*sidestepping the BS*

I see the inherant difficulty in solo play as a fantastic training ground as you desperately see how far you can get, even with quests such as DG. After battling on the solo field you will likely be ready for anything with any sphere with solid tactics and efficient

maybe...dunno..was just the thought the thread provoked. >.<

*sidestepping the BS*

I see the inherant difficulty in solo play as a fantastic training ground as you desperately see how far you can get, even with quests such as DG. After battling on the solo field you will likely be ready for anything with any sphere with solid tactics and efficient game play

maybe...dunno..was just the thought the thread provoked. >.<

@UnthoughtKnown - interesting "rant". I take all your points and agree that the empirical evidence is effectively useless with such a small sample size.
However I think there is another important aspect to take into account when comparing 1 vs 2 player - and that is deck building.

In pretty much all quests your deck needs to be able to Quest, Attack and Defend.

Because optional engagement gives you a measure of control over who ends up in combat with the enemies and Willpower is summed across all players when questing, playing with two players allows one player to focus much more on questing and the other much more on combat and together deal with both these aspects of the quest.

In a Solo game one deck has to do this by itself.

Because of the way combat effectiveness & Quest effectiveness (plus extra resource generation, card draw & healing) is split across the spheres and the way resource generation works it is a lot easier for two decks to have access to a good selection of effects and be able to play them consistently than it is for a Solo deck.

The way I see it a Solo deck either has to sacrifice a portion of the effects pie (at least one sphere, often two) or consistency (running three different sphered heroes - or lots of songs). Where as in two players the decks can cover each other’s weaknesses whilst each being reasonably consistent.
Sure it is possible to build competent and consistent Solo decks but I think this is quite a "hard" deck building exercise.

Compare a 2 player game where 1 player is running mono spirit and the other mono tactics, Consistency will be high (as you'll pretty much be able to play any card in your hand each turn only having to save for the most powerful effects) and the decks can cover questing and combat between them pretty well.

To get the same level of consistency Solo you would only have access to one Sphere or build a much more tuned and sophisticated multi sphere deck...

So whilst I agree that once deck building is done - if deck power is about equal then 1 or 2 player should be about equal in terms of difficulty. I think that the metagame of deck building is much more of a challenge for Solo play...

Maybe I can throw out my 2cents as well...

I think what UnthoughtKnown wants to say is, that we simply cannot prove, if 1P or 2P is harder. So talking about it is to some degree moot, but everybody has an opinion of course.

To me it boils down to this: Playing this game solo makes it almost like a completely different game. And Bungo_Underhill has a very good point here: The difference in difficulty has to do with deckbuilding in my opinion. Different cards have different strengths depending on the number of players and I am not talking about the obvious ones like Campfire Tales. Take Thalin for example, his ability gives you way more power the more players are around. On the other hand a card like Henamarth Riversong is GOLD for solo play, this card alone (or Denethor) improves your solo winning chances so much.

If you can build a clever and efficient deck for solo play, then you often cannot simply transfer it to multiplayer, because your strategy might not work.

Relying on Henamarth to give you perfect information? No more.

Built a deck without Northern Trackers (I often do solo), that can deal with the maximum of 1 location per turn? Might not be enough in multiplayer.

Getting a good use out of many unique cards? Works solo, but might clog up your hand with more players. And so on.

And it goes the other way, too. If you build a strong 2P deck, you often cannot transfer it to 1P, because you might have too many weaknesses left.

So to me the difficulty is in the deckbuilding and taking different and often VERY different approaches.

(I created a thread some time ago to raise awareness of some things that are easier in single player, so maybe this helps people better adapt to solo mode: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/651345/some-things-to-consider-that-are-actually-easier-w)

In the end everybody has to decide for himself whether or not the pro-solo features outweigh the pro-multi features or vice versa.

I figured I would try to make some peace at the end (hopefully) of this controversial blog. UnthoughKnown: thanks for your efforts to run the stats on the scaling in this game; though I don't agree with you in most places, you are entitled to you opinion and I respect that. I apologize for sounding arrogant in response to you.

Thank you all for commenting; I will not be posting anymore of these "one player is harder" blogs, for, I know we are all tired of hearing about it, and the game still has much time to grow.

This game is freaking awesome regardless of how many players and though I still think solo is harder logistically, it is still a blast and I am hooked!

Solo is way easier if your partner is a cat. Just sayin'.

UnthoughtKnown said:

If YOU had read MY post, you'd have noticed that I wasn't merely 'reciting' what you acknowledged. I mentioned several points you never addressed.

In case you've forgotten, here's what you stated in your first post:

It just doesnt. Last time I went totally overboard with it an posted a fuddgin science articel about propabilties and scaling effects and I dont think anyone understood. Just let me assure you, with a degree of absolute certainity, that 2 player is in no way, shape or form much easier than 1 Player. It requires different deck building, yes. But thats about it. Dul Guldor beeing the super-obvious exception of course. [/endquote]

So, where's the science article, where are your probabilities? What is there that 'nobody understood'? Let ME assure YOU 'with a degree of absolute certainty' that you are completely wrong - the Dol Guldur scenario is a strong indication for it (I'd actually say it proves it).

UnthoughtKnown said:

I have no idea how you perceive reality, but I definitely agree that most people don't get the fundamentals on science. If your post is any indication, you clearly belong to that group - no offense intended - I'm just stating simple facts here

leptokurt said:

My cat isn't very good. She insists on playing a three sphere deck using Aragorn and the Hobbits. "Escort from Bag End" she calls it, and that's fine, but she has some sort of aversion to using Songs and she'll never mulligan to try to get an early Steward of Gondor. We just can't win! She prefers Battlestar Galactica anyway.

Two+ players may be easier than one, but if there is a big discrepancy between skill levels, it can get frustrating for the more skilled player. Unless you suspend the table talk rules about not reading from or describing any part of the cards in your hand...

dol goldur and carrock are amazing and challenging for 2 players. i avoid them with solo though. love level 4 for solo. challenging but doesn't have that impossible or cheated feel. level 4 and under are just for fun. compare your best scores.

here's something i do to spice up solo play. pick a quest(not level 7) shuffle all the hero's and randomly pick 3. then build your deck from there. i'm having fun with that.

just have to accept the scaling of some of the quests and treat them multiplayer quest,/ solo quest. e.g. carrock - 4 trolls against 3 hero's or 6 hero's. dol goldur- 2 hero's to begin or 5. i don't believe the makers made the game imbalanced for solo or multiplayer. i think they made them- some for solo, some for 2 or more.