Suggestions to improve point allocation

[ChiefPointThief]

I don't know what you mean. There are several team games on bga (spades for one).

There is no need to change anything IMO. Nothing bad. It is a simple scoring system that is not to be taken seriously and it will roughly estimate player skills.

Tell that to the countless players who have been asking for change for yrs. Also it isn't a rough estimate because what it does is keep everyone's elo closer than what it should be making players appear equal when they really aren't. This is why there are really no "strong players" in spades. The only way to achieve this is to constantly partner w/ a equally strong player. If you are good you can reach strong status but it won't be maintained playing w/ the field. If you play with a weaker teammate you receive less elo for wins and lose more for losses when it should be the opposite.

I don't know how BGA has implemented team games. Probably it is one of the ways I explained before.

And there are countless players who are fine with how it is at the moment. Probably even more. You can't really make it work much better as there are different way to boost one's elo score. Just play with friends or tell in chat what cards each player has. Any system can and will be abused. So just don't bother.

You have to be a strong player that actually cares about elo for you to want change. This is the minority so I wouldn't doubt most people are ok w/ the current system but that doesn't take away the fact that it is bad. People already abuse the system currently so that isn't a valid reason to keep the system as is.

So I will say you get +6 pts for winning w/ a 100 elo in hanabi just to fit this example. That is 12pts total for the team. We played and you only got +2 but I am almost 800 elo. What the current system for team games does on bga is give the 100elo player 10 out of 12 of the team pts and you would get 2. Why play with the 100elo player in your position if you can get the same pts playing w/ an 800elo player? In a loss you would also lose 10pts out of the 12. So pts are constantly taken from stronger players and given to weaker players bringing the true rating of strong players down and rising weaker players giving the illusion that everyone is almost equal.

[Wreckage]

So I will say you get +6 pts for winning w/ a 100 elo in hanabi just to fit this example. That is 12pts total for the team. We played and you only got +2 but I am almost 800 elo. What the current system for team games does on bga is give the 100elo player 10 out of 12 of the team pts and you would get 2. Why play with the 100elo player in your position if you can get the same pts playing w/ an 800elo player? In a loss you would also lose 10pts out of the 12. So pts are constantly taken from stronger players and given to weaker players bringing the true rating of strong players down and rising weaker players giving the illusion that everyone is almost equal.

Look at any completed game of hanabi, and you'll see nothing like what you are describing is accurate.

[ChiefPointThief]

So I will say you get +6 pts for winning w/ a 100 elo in hanabi just to fit this example. That is 12pts total for the team. We played and you only got +2 but I am almost 800 elo. What the current system for team games does on bga is give the 100elo player 10 out of 12 of the team pts and you would get 2. Why play with the 100elo player in your position if you can get the same pts playing w/ an 800elo player? In a loss you would also lose 10pts out of the 12. So pts are constantly taken from stronger players and given to weaker players bringing the true rating of strong players down and rising weaker players giving the illusion that everyone is almost equal.

Look at any completed game of hanabi, and you'll see nothing like what you are describing is accurate.

I was explaining to Stroom how team vs team elo is done on bga. That is how it works. Hanabi I think he classified as team vs environment.

[ufm]

I was explaining to Stroom how team vs team elo is done on bga. That is how it works. Hanabi I think he classified as team vs environment.

In fact co-op rating calculation correctly identifies average team rating, unlike malfunctioning BGA team game ELOs which treats all players as individuals.
I have no idea on why BGA used a worse algorithm for team games only.

[HanabiGrandMaster]

If more skill doesn't equal more win rate, then what does skill even mean?

Win rate is NOT equal to skill. For Hanabi it does not make sense. You might have different partners who play differently. Some worse, some better. The other players would take down your win rate.

I understand what you are saying. I want to sympathize with you, however YOUR definition of skill is arbitrary. You might as well say: "people who don't play fast enough, have no skill". It makes you sound like a playground toddler who's angry because his friends aren't playing the game right. You can have all the skill in the world, but if it doesn't win you games, what is it worth?

It's probably worth "fun" to you. I recommend that you filter fun with redthumbs.

[Stroom]

As a 2p player I understand your comments. I've noticed people apply other people's comments to their own personal experience which causes a disconnect. For instance, I could tell jellby probably wasn't a 2p player which explains their view on flams being different. It is easier for the double discard in 2p. Bringing back dead cards is the main advantage of flams. He also pointed out that you may have to play your 5s before you can utilize the flams. In 2p you can have more leeway to hold on to your 5s until you can properly take advantage of the flams. So it is understandable for us to have a different view of flams than a 5p player.

Without flamboyants you can still prevent double discards. And you should. If one of the 2 cards is discarded and you are not sure if your shop can be the same card, you should waste a clue to let the other player continue. Sure, there are some cases when suddenly he has to save 2-3 cards in a row but that is less common. There's always a risk but it can be mitigated in the long run.

With flamboyants, you can risk double discards like this as it does not happen very often. But when it does happen, you have 1, probably 2 flamboyants to help you (one of the from-discard flamboyants might b the last one so it could be blocked by the discarded uniques). After this kind of discard, you should become more cautious, preventing further double discards. Referring to the first paragraph... So you take some form of risk based on the low probability, where you also have a higher probability to fix it later. So it is just a balancing issue of risk vs reward.

[Stroom]

You have to be a strong player that actually cares about elo for you to want change. This is the minority so I wouldn't doubt most people are ok w/ the current system but that doesn't take away the fact that it is bad. People already abuse the system currently so that isn't a valid reason to keep the system as is.

So I will say you get +6 pts for winning w/ a 100 elo in hanabi just to fit this example. That is 12pts total for the team. We played and you only got +2 but I am almost 800 elo. What the current system for team games does on bga is give the 100elo player 10 out of 12 of the team pts and you would get 2. Why play with the 100elo player in your position if you can get the same pts playing w/ an 800elo player? In a loss you would also lose 10pts out of the 12. So pts are constantly taken from stronger players and given to weaker players bringing the true rating of strong players down and rising weaker players giving the illusion that everyone is almost equal.

I do not see this as an issue. It's a game of average. The amount of elo you gain or lose from one game is irrelevant. Elo is NOT meant to grow indefinitely. It will grow at a slow pace and based on your performance in those games, it will reach a plateau that very roughly represents your skill level. The system is fine.

People can abuse ANY system you come up with. Sure, playing with lower elo players is the only way for me to increase my score as playing with other 1000+ would be basically 0, where gaining non-perfect scores would already pull us down 2-3 points. But... who cares? It is expected of us to perform and if we don't, it's fine to lose those points. Playing with very low elo players also comes with a risk that they don't know some tactics and they would waste our clues for things that are unnecessary, causing us to lose a lot of points in the long run, so my elo does not raise at the end of the game.

You could easily just chat and tell what to play or discard. Or set up a non-BGA chat for that to bypass any other measures you put in place. Don't worry about abusing methods in this case.

If our average elo for the 2 of us is (800 + 1100) / 2 = 950 and you say that when we win, your elo should increase more than mine... that is not fair either. Me as a "more skilled" player probably carried the game with more advanced tactics and you benefitted from it as well. Rewarding everyone o the team equally seems much more fair. Otherwise I could say that higher elo players who carry the team should get the reward and lower skilled players just tagged along to win the game. But I don't do that. It's a team game and rewards are shared evenly. This is fine.

You don't seem to grasp what elo is meant to represent. You only look at the results of one game at a time and make wrong conclusions.

[Stroom]

If more skill doesn't equal more win rate, then what does skill even mean?

Win rate is NOT equal to skill. For Hanabi it does not make sense. You might have different partners who play differently. Some worse, some better. The other players would take down your win rate.

I understand what you are saying. I want to sympathize with you, however YOUR definition of skill is arbitrary. You might as well say: "people who don't play fast enough, have no skill". It makes you sound like a playground toddler who's angry because his friends aren't playing the game right. You can have all the skill in the world, but if it doesn't win you games, what is it worth?

It's probably worth "fun" to you. I recommend that you filter fun with redthumbs.

Skill is not really measurable 100%. You can't say if 750 is better than 800. You can somewhat predict that 900 is better than 300 but you can also sometimes (rarely) see a 300 be better than 900 in the game. This is what elo represents. A probability metric of how well a player performs in the game compared to others. It is not 100% precise and you probably can't have a precise metric for it anyway. So many factors are involved that you can't know for sure.

Not sure where you take the "other people aren't playing the game right" argument from what I said. This is not what I think.

Your definition of "winning" in Hanabi only seems to be getting the max points. Very black and white viewpoint. This is not what elo measures. It measures the amount of points you get vs the imaginary opponent that is based on the average elo score. The target you have to hit is fluid based on your and your teammate's average elo. And it is a good enough system for approximating skill/performance.

I'd say that I perform relatively well in 2p games. The system seems to work. I do not infinitely gain score. I can look at the rank evolution history and see how the score has had different plateaus and I can reason why it was like this at different points in time. Some are related to my own skill increasing, some are related to how the platform had changed and that had influenced the ranking.

[ChiefPointThief]

Without flamboyants you can still prevent double discards. And you should. If one of the 2 cards is discarded and you are not sure if your shop can be the same card, you should waste a clue to let the other player continue. Sure, there are some cases when suddenly he has to save 2-3 cards in a row but that is less common. There's always a risk but it can be mitigated in the long run.

With flamboyants, you can risk double discards like this as it does not happen very often. But when it does happen, you have 1, probably 2 flamboyants to help you (one of the from-discard flamboyants might b the last one so it could be blocked by the discarded uniques). After this kind of discard, you should become more cautious, preventing further double discards. Referring to the first paragraph... So you take some form of risk based on the low probability, where you also have a higher probability to fix it later. So it is just a balancing issue of risk vs reward.

Agreed. Imo not having to clue after a discard to prevent a double discard is a huge advantage. For people who say you are only getting a couple pts more for getting back the double discard well yes. That is the difference between losses and gains for ppl at our level.

[ChiefPointThief]

You have to be a strong player that actually cares about elo for you to want change. This is the minority so I wouldn't doubt most people are ok w/ the current system but that doesn't take away the fact that it is bad. People already abuse the system currently so that isn't a valid reason to keep the system as is.

So I will say you get +6 pts for winning w/ a 100 elo in hanabi just to fit this example. That is 12pts total for the team. We played and you only got +2 but I am almost 800 elo. What the current system for team games does on bga is give the 100elo player 10 out of 12 of the team pts and you would get 2. Why play with the 100elo player in your position if you can get the same pts playing w/ an 800elo player? In a loss you would also lose 10pts out of the 12. So pts are constantly taken from stronger players and given to weaker players bringing the true rating of strong players down and rising weaker players giving the illusion that everyone is almost equal.

I do not see this as an issue. It's a game of average. The amount of elo you gain or lose from one game is irrelevant. Elo is NOT meant to grow indefinitely. It will grow at a slow pace and based on your performance in those games, it will reach a plateau that very roughly represents your skill level. The system is fine.

If our average elo for the 2 of us is (800 + 1100) / 2 = 950 and you say that when we win, your elo should increase more than mine... that is not fair either. Me as a "more skilled" player probably carried the game with more advanced tactics and you benefitted from it as well. Rewarding everyone o the team equally seems much more fair. Otherwise I could say that higher elo players who carry the team should get the reward and lower skilled players just tagged along to win the game. But I don't do that. It's a team game and rewards are shared evenly. This is fine.

You don't seem to grasp what elo is meant to represent. You only look at the results of one game at a time and make wrong conclusions.

You contradicted yourself in these paragraphs. I agree w/ this second paragraph though which was my point. I’m unsure if you actually understood my post but in team vs team games the rewards are not shared evenly (reference ufm post ^^). The plateau is way lower. So it doesn’t roughly measure your skill level because the pts allocated are wrong.