Certain games should not award middle placements

[Ba3henov]

A few games are designed such that there is only one winner, and everyone else is a loser equally, regardless of how close they were. However, BGA awards second, third, etc. place whenever it can, incentivizing playing for second place when that is not in the spirit of the game.
Two examples I know are Hearts and Catan, but I'm sure there are others. These games should only have one winner (with a rare exception when multiple people tie for first in Hearts), and everyone else should lose ELO equally. In other words, there should be no difference in ELO loss whether you got second or fourth.
Since this is currently not implemented, the rational choice when first is far ahead is to shoot for second by fighting the people who are losing with you. This is frustrating for those who are trying to play the game the way it's meant to be played. In Catan, for example, BGA's placement system is clearly against the rulebook.

Edit: Actually the rules in almost all games including the two I mentioned are actually open to interpretation on whether it's ranked placement or there's only one winner.

[Strode]

Hearts players have been complaining about this for a while. It should definitely be a thing in some games - only 1st place matters.

Of course, none of this would matter if people cared more about the game experience than their Elo ratings.

[King Hrothbeort]

I have definitely seen people playing for second place in real life versions of both of these games where there is no Elo system to worry about. In any game where there is a score it makes sense to play for second when you see that you cannot win.

[detlefchef11]

Part of me wants to say that basically every game is this way and you either won or you didn't. On the other hand, the system of awarding something for second may keep people engaged in games they have no shot at winning which may create a better experience for everyone.

[Jellby]

You also see people complaining that winning by a 100-point difference doesn't give more reward (i.e., ELO or EAS) than winning in the tie-breaker.

[Fletcheese]

This is an inherent issue with ELO not with BGA. ELO was designed for 2-player zero sum games e.g. Chess. You shouldn't pay too much attention to it outside of those scenarios.

Related to this, I am generally an advocate for making every game 2-player on Arena assuming it can be played that way.

[Ba3henov]

This is an inherent issue with ELO not with BGA. ELO was designed for 2-player zero sum games e.g. Chess. You shouldn't pay too much attention to it outside of those scenarios.

While ELO was designed for chess, it is easily adapted for multiplayer games. You can read more here: https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=faq_account_elo

ELO is not the problem. The problem is that BGA chooses to treat 2nd place as a winner over 3rd and 4th, 3rd as a winner over 4th, etc. BGA can easily fix this issue by assigning first place "winner" and everyone else "loser", as it already does for games without points.

[ufm]

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam.
Such a change does not fix the situation as others will complain for the exact opposite reason - disregarding every score difference except the winner's.
And this opens other cans of worms like kingmaking.

[ChiefPointThief]

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam.
Such a change does not fix the situation as others will complain for the exact opposite reason - disregarding every score difference except the winner's.
And this opens other cans of worms like kingmaking.

^^ I strongly disagree with op. I don’t see how creating a everyone is a loser system makes for a better game experience. In my opinion it would be drastically worse.
He did mention certain games but really if you are going to use that logic it could be applied to all games.

[Ba3henov]

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam.
Such a change does not fix the situation as others will complain for the exact opposite reason - disregarding every score difference except the winner's.
And this opens other cans of worms like kingmaking.

^^ I strongly disagree with op. I don’t see how creating a everyone is a loser system makes for a better game experience. In my opinion it would be drastically worse.
He did mention certain games but really if you are going to use that logic it could be applied to all games.

Please do not misinterpret my suggestion. Nobody is advocating for single-winner for all games.

The two games I mentioned, Hearts and Catan, are the only two games out of all the ones I know that would benefit from it. In both those those games, single-winner is explicitly stated in the rules (there's no official rulebook for Hearts but all sources I found agree) and the communities in both those games are mostly in favor of adhering to the rules as it genuinely makes a better experience for those games specifically. Not for all games.

There is a site for Catan only, *, that uses such a system. The winner gets a bunch of ELO and 2nd through last place all get a similar small ELO loss (slight variation depending on your starting ELO), and the community loves it.

Kingmaking is a valid concern. Indeed, players might be tempted to kingmake when they believe they're in a hopeless position. However, I don't think it makes sense to change the rules for everybody simply to cater to rule-breakers. It is blatantly obvious when a player engages in kingmaking in these games, so all honest players can simply RT the offender.

*moderator edit: please do not name other gaming platforms specifically on BGA