We need to have a talk about ELO

[avibobby]

Mod team and Hearts community ... I know this is felt by a lot people, based on positive interactions I continue to have in chats and privately with so many ... the ELO problem is real.

Hearts is traditionally a game of one winner among four players. That's it.

We have this near obsession on BGA Hearts with players fighting for their ELO only.

Jockeying for 2nd and 3rd place is a fabricated component of Hearts on BGA that is making the game veer off into something that it was never meant to be. The three players who do not win in any given game of Hearts should all be treated the same by scoring standards. Otherwise, we're playing something new entirely.

Even on BGA - when I look at my history of Hearts games, it shows me my victory count. Just wins and losses. Nothing about the other made-up outcomes.

What are we trying to achieve here? Hearts, or a new game altogether?

By not tallying points based on pure win/loss status in any given game, we're really missing the boat, and it's a disservice to the frequent players on here that want to play Hearts as it is meant to be played.

[avibobby]

And I just had somebody straight up say in the chat after a game that they were playing for 2nd. They dropped a queen on me and then admitted they did it so they could take 2nd place.

I'm not here to dox and call out names, but just having that happen is so terrible for this game. Why are we okay with this??

[TheGrubes]

This post is right on... ELO should be increased by more for winner. 2-4 should lose the same amount regardless of place.

[26Shooter]

Agreed, hearts is a game of only one winner
Giving an award for second place is an abomination that no longer represents the game of hearts

[Jellby]

There's no award for second (or first) place. Elo is not an award, it's an estimation for your level at the game.

[Waugapapa]

Yes. This is a massive problem.

Apparently, the coder of hearts just says “this uses the same ELO as other 4 players games in BGA.”

Uh, no? Hearts has a *unique* win condition. The game
Is completely different if only winning is meaningful.

I had some clown dump the Q on me, then PASS A SHOOT to the first place player TO SECURE THIRD.

It completely ruins the game, without question.

It’s not even the clown’s fault: -25 for last, -5 for third? No brainer.

[ufm]

The rules do not state losers can never be ranked. End of story.

[Waugapapa]

You can rank the players — but you only rank the winner. There is, literally, no other win condition.

Because the ELO determines the type of player you end up playing with, people GO CRAZY making sure they don’t lose ELO, and so you have people playing in a wildly differnt fashion to achieve win conditions that the game doesn’t have.

Rank the games, go for it. But first is all that matters — everyone else gets zero or a flat participation point. That way the ELO will actually start to reflect good hearts players, and not ELO grubbing.

If you’re playing for a win condition that the game doesn’t have, you are not a good hearts player. End of story.

[ufm]

You can rank the players — but you only rank the winner. There is, literally, no other win condition.

In almost all games using points, players are ranked by points.
Unless the rules say 'losers are never ranked', I see no reason to do so.

Because the ELO determines the type of player you end up playing with, people GO CRAZY making sure they don’t lose ELO, and so you have people playing in a wildly differnt fashion to achieve win conditions that the game doesn’t have.

Rank the games, go for it. But first is all that matters — everyone else gets zero or a flat participation point. That way the ELO will actually start to reflect good hearts players, and not ELO grubbing.

Being the 2nd/3rd/4th is not a win in any game, and ELO is relevant to each player's rank in the game, not being the 1st place.
Actually you're inventing the concept of 'winning a game'.

If you’re playing for a win condition that the game doesn’t have, you are not a good hearts player. End of story.

The burden of proof lies on who argues that something exists.
I can't find what you say ('losers cannot be ranked') in any credible rules sources. For example:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hearts-card-game
https://www.pagat.com/reverse/hearts.html
https://bicyclecards.com/how-to-play/hearts/

If you find one, please cite it here.

EDIT: I've had enough. You proved you can't post any credible basis for your argument. I'll not respond further to this subject.

[Waugapapa]

No.

You’ve made no argument here. Ironically, the links you provide only prove the point.

There is only a winner, and three losers. Ranking the losers creates grades of winner, which the game itself doesn’t have.

You’ve tried the old internet trick of citing logical fallacies, as a method of argument.

The fallacies are there as a template, then YOU have to make an argument—which you haven’t done.

Nice try, though.