ELO Ratings

[Bonhoeffer85]

Would someone explain how ELO is calculated in Hearts?

[Jest Phulin]

ELO calculation in Hearts, or in any multi-player game on BGA, works as a group of 2-player matches.

The ELO system was developed for chess, and as such, was designed with only two player competitions in mind. To extend it to multiplayer, each game is treated as a combination of several smaller games.

Players A, B, C, and D play a game. A gets the best score, followed by B, C, and D (in that order).
Each player will have been considered to have played 3 games.
A wins against B, C, and D.
B wins against C and D, and looses to A
C wins against D, and looses to A and B
D looses against A, B, and C.
In the game summary, the individual results are not displayed, just the total results.
This system encourages people to still try for the best score/position, even if it isn't going to be first.

For a full explanation of how the ELO system works in general, try the Wikipedia page.

[Beorn]

"This system encourages people to still try for the best score/position, even if it isn't going to be first."

This encourages players to play not to come in last so as I have heard players say, "I still good ELO points".
It encourages players to not play for first and be happy with second place. To throw a person over the end game score and take second or even third. Games should be played to win and a person playing for second or third is in my opinion not a good hearts players. Should not encourage players to play poorly and the ELO rating system does just that.

[RicardoRix]

There is an option to turn ELO off. Training mode.

[Chuck Skullz]

"This system encourages people to still try for the best score/position, even if it isn't going to be first."

This encourages players to play not to come in last so as I have heard players say, "I still good ELO points".
It encourages players to not play for first and be happy with second place. To throw a person over the end game score and take second or even third. Games should be played to win and a person playing for second or third is in my opinion not a good hearts players. Should not encourage players to play poorly and the ELO rating system does just that.

I agree with this fully. Its becoming very widespread now in the hearts games. There are now soooo many players that will literally play contrary to how you would actually play this game in person because of the ELO system awarding points for 2nd place.

[OiradS]

Perhaps a solution would be to value "non-winner" victories at 50% (or at some other percentage), that is, the 2nd takes only 50% of the Elo points he should gain for "defeating" the 3rd and the 4th (and symmetrically the 3rd and the 4th lose only 50% of the points). In this way there is still some difference between finishing dead last or almost winning, but the strategy of not coming last loses much of its appeal. (Also for beginners or not-so-good players like myself, going long stretches of time always losing Elo because you always end up with a single experienced player who wins can be frustrating.)

On the other hand, I think that Arena points should only be awarded to the winner - after all, the point of Arena is competition.

[Chuck Skullz]

Perhaps a solution would be to value "non-winner" victories at 50% (or at some other percentage), that is, the 2nd takes only 50% of the Elo points he should gain for "defeating" the 3rd and the 4th (and symmetrically the 3rd and the 4th lose only 50% of the points). In this way there is still some difference between finishing dead last or almost winning, but the strategy of not coming last loses much of its appeal. (Also for beginners or not-so-good players like myself, going long stretches of time always losing Elo because you always end up with a single experienced player who wins can be frustrating.)

On the other hand, I think that Arena points should only be awarded to the winner - after all, the point of Arena is competition.

this would be an improvement, yes, agreed.

I had to stop playing hearts here because its full of people playing for 2nd and kingmaking at the first opportunity as long as they gain some ELO. I had so many games with ELO hounds going so far to bump through the worst player to first. Any of the players playing as if it were a 'live' or traditional game (ie sometimes you have to eat points to prevent shooting the moon) were losing often to this strategy. The game is really ruined in this version. I don't think its a fair solution to suggest turning off ELO entirely. People like some friendly competition. People don't like it when meta ELO hounding overtakes the original intent of the game. I still think a special ELO system of + points for winning and maybe 0 points for 2nd, 3rd, 4th is a better idea for hearts. You're always supposed to be trying to keep the high-point-person from winning. This ELO system changes the game completely.

[heart-bandit]

I agree that the scoring system for hearts is totally wrong. It should be that the winner gets + points and 2nd - 4th all get - points,

[SleeperService]

Add me to the list who feel that rewarding 2nd place and, to some extent, 3rd place is not right. It also adds a lot of rancor to the chats. I play to win but still get accused often of playing to the ELO.