Insane : hundreds of simultaneously played turn based games

[Hagardunor]

.....
*ETA: I edited my post as this originally said ELOs and I wondered why I did that. Then I looked at the post with the sample, and it does indeed say that the two players with lots of games have rubbish "ELOs", so it seems that poster was commenting on their skill level at a game and saying that a person who plays lots of games will probably not be very good at them. Which also isn't true, and is even harder to prove based on that sample which only looked at their ELO for Decrypto. So basically, the sample given has nothing to do with bad karma players, and the point that limiting by number of games played is unlikely to impact the number of bad karma players you meet still stands.

Indeed, I made this sample on Decrypto because this is a very demanding game, and this is particular one that in my opinion does not match well with playing many many other games simultaneously. I don't claim for a general trend on ALL games.

As I said above, please increase that Decrypto sample to prove I am wrong. I woud fairly accept such proof.

[nik592]

As I said above, please increase that Decrypto sample to prove I am wrong. I woud fairly accept such proof.

Well actually, I did make a start, but while looking for people who play in the Decrypto forums, I came across this thread: https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31836 saying that ELO is basically irrelevant for co-op games. That is an argument I've heard before, and I tend to agree with it, and so it seems do you, being the second poster in that thread. So I'm not sure why you bring up ELO in regards to the quality of Decrypto players anyway.

Look, at the end of the day, you do you. Red-thumb every person you come across who (in your opinion) plays too many games if you want. Your original post asked a question:

Can you seriously believe that a player can properly manage hundreds of turn based games ?

Yes.

Your post then went on to suggest:

There should be an absolute upper limit of simultaneously played turn based games

Which I, and obviously several others here, strongly disagree with. You do you, but let others do as suits them too.

[buu441]

You are expected to play more and more simultaneous games, BGA even rewards you for that through achievements 5head

[Hagardunor]

...
So I'm not sure why you bring up ELO in regards to the quality of Decrypto players anyway.

...

Well, this is because I have no other metric at hand to measure how good one player performs in Decrypto.

As bad as it is (I still continue to believe that) I hope it may show some trends.

[Hagardunor]

...

Your post then went on to suggest:

There should be an absolute upper limit of simultaneously played turn based games

Which I, and obviously several others here, strongly disagree with. You do you, but let others do as suits them too.

This is something I regret now, that I wrote in anger after a very bad experience with a 200+ turn based games player.

Obviously everyone is entitled to play as much game as they want as long as it does not impact negatively other players' games. What I think is not the case for such demanding games as Decrypto with which deep reflexion is required that does not match with speeding through hundreds of games (in my opinion)

[Hagardunor]

You are expected to play more and more simultaneous games, BGA even rewards you for that through achievements 5head

I know that BGA rewards people when they try new games they have not played before. I have never heard of a reward for playing hundred+ simultaneous games. Did you ?

[Hagardunor]

...
So I'm not sure why you bring up ELO in regards to the quality of Decrypto players anyway.

...

Well, this is because I have no other metric at hand to measure how good one player performs in Decrypto.

As bad as it is (I still continue to believe that) I hope it may show some trends.

[turtler7]

...

Your post then went on to suggest:

There should be an absolute upper limit of simultaneously played turn based games

Which I, and obviously several others here, strongly disagree with. You do you, but let others do as suits them too.

This is something I regret now, that I wrote in anger after a very bad experience with a 200+ turn based games player.

Obviously everyone is entitled to play as much game as they want as long as it does not impact negatively other players' games. What I think is not the case for such demanding games as Decrypto with which deep reflexion is required that does not match with speeding through hundreds of games (in my opinion)

Decrypto is not nearly as demanding of a game as you seem to think. If you were to drop me into a game state of decrypto that I was not even playing in, the way the clues are shown under their numbers, past fail on sheet showing another close relationship if any, and simply having a deep background in clue giving games I could make a good guess (possibly far better than someone with only one game they have been deeply absorbed in thinking about continueously) from that tactical snapshot of the game and in very little time.

The ability of a player to analyze and make good decisions has very little to do with how many other things they are doing when not looking at that particular game. You might as well say you want a way to sort out players who are in the medical field because while they may be smart, by the time they get to checking their turn based games they are totally drained and are more likely to make a mental mistake in that state.

ELO is normally an indicator of a mix of time spent playing a game and sometimes of relative skill. If it is a competitive game it is much more likely to show skill. If it is a coop game it only shows time spent playing (which hopefully correlates with acquired skill but definitely doesn’t have to).

Sometimes people treat a low elo player as very little threat or untrustworthy when really that could be the best player at the table who plays a lot in person and is just now playing online. I have a lot of elite assassin badges and have even had people make forum posts upset about losing to a no rank no elo player because I am just now trying that game online while actually being a world champion level player in physical events prior to starting that game.

There is no good way to snap judge a player’s quality as good or poor at the game. And with clue giving games it is often not about their skill but how well they mesh with others. I infamously once gave a clue once intending for people to connect the words math, tree, and a couple science related words with the clue log. I was let down by the fact that not one of my teammates knew what a logarithm is. That doesn’t make me a bad clue giver and that doesn’t make them dumb team mates either. It means we didn’t mesh well on that particular topic.

Sorry for your bad experience. Feel free to be skeptical of people and watch for warning signs. Be careful of acting too fast based on a potential warning sign though. Ultimately judge individuals by their performance not by some categorical bias (the definition of prejudice).

[buu441]

You are expected to play more and more simultaneous games, BGA even rewards you for that through achievements 5head

I know that BGA rewards people when they try new games they have not played before. I have never heard of a reward for playing hundred+ simultaneous games. Did you ?

I recently got one for having 30 games played simultaneously. I don't know where it stops, maybe someone else has the answer to that. Either way, the problem posted in the forum is so artificial, and a solution in the form of red thumbs already exists.

[nik592]

There's one for 100 simultaneous games, I haven't gone much beyond that myself. I wouldn't say it necessarily encourages you to play more games, as the achievements don't really do anything for you (no more than you get achievements for each level each season in Arena, but I would debate whether that's an enticement to anyone after they've got a couple already), more just marking what you do on BGA.