View my actual Elo/Glicko-2 score?

[Ceaseless]

It is most beneficial for you to make the player with highest score to lose as you get more points out of him. You can't negate that in any kind of system

This is not true. You get the same amount of points for same position, regardless of whether you beat the highest scored and lose to lowest score, or the opposite.

I thought BGA counted it as a win vs the players you scored ahead of and a loss to the ones who scored ahead of you?

[Stroom]

I'd say securing second/third/or whatever place when the chance to get the first place is slim a strategic move to cut the losses.
You may red thumb freely though.

Only winning matters. Everything else is a loss. That's a point of view thing. Thinking that playing for 2nd place is any kind of fun, is flawed. Why even start playing if you don't try to win? And that's why I don't think elo score should incentivize giving up mid-game.

[Stroom]

It is most beneficial for you to make the player with highest score to lose as you get more points out of him. You can't negate that in any kind of system

This is not true. You get the same amount of points for same position, regardless of whether you beat the highest scored and lose to lowest score, or the opposite.

Actually it is. I have built an elo calculation system myself. Also for a multiplayer game.

If a 400 beats a 1000 then he gets much more elo for winning than a 1000 beating a 400. It is more probable that a higher elo wins so he gains less for winning.

The same calculation applies to multiplayer calculation. Every pair of players is calculated in a similar manner and elo scores are summed up to one number. So if you are 1st, you win vs all players. If you are 2nd, you lose to the winner and win vs others.

You don't get any fixed number of points based on your placement. That's not how elo works.

[ufm]

I explained how playing for 2nd can just mean that you make the leader win faster. This especially works for the current elo calculation. You make the 1st place win, retaining 2nd place and 3rd, 4th etc do not have a chance. You still won vs 3rd and 4th, it doesn't matter if 1st place had 10 points, you had 4 points and 3rd, 4th had 2 points.

It definitely depends on the game but overall, you should always play to win in every game. No need to incentivize any kind of behavior. With any kind of system, players will try to abuse it.

If you have 2nd place and losing makes you lose either way... you might try to still bash the leader and become first. Which is the main goal for most games. Playing for 2nd is like giving up on trying to me. Making the game end sooner and not trying is red-thumb-worthy to me. Any kind of kingmaking is. So, in case of 2nd place always losing is more of an incentive for all players to try and win.

Overall maybe, but scores are not always tight. Tons of games end up with runaway leaders or clear winners.
Again, enforcing 'only winning matters' regardless of the situation only worsens kingmaking.
There is a reason why BGA and many other sites adopted this approach rather than yours.

And in your link, one of the examples was "penalties greater than match loss (for example, ostracism, disqualification)—questionable or unsportsmanlike conduct geared toward effecting a kingmaker scenario." - so the player gets red thumbed and can't play with higher skilled player if he plays like that.

I'd say securing second/third/or whatever place when the chance to get the first place is slim a strategic move to cut the losses.
You may red thumb freely though.

Only winning matters. Everything else is a loss. That's a point of view thing. Thinking that playing for 2nd place is any kind of fun, is flawed. Why even start playing if you don't try to win? And that's why I don't think elo score should incentivize giving up mid-game.

You are constantly ignoring 'runaway leaders or clear winners' and 'when the chance to get the first place is slim'. Stop beating a straw man.

[Tulivuori]

It is most beneficial for you to make the player with highest score to lose as you get more points out of him. You can't negate that in any kind of system

This is not true. You get the same amount of points for same position, regardless of whether you beat the highest scored and lose to lowest score, or the opposite.

Actually it is. I have built an elo calculation system myself. Also for a multiplayer game.

If a 400 beats a 1000 then he gets much more elo for winning than a 1000 beating a 400. It is more probable that a higher elo wins so he gains less for winning.

The same calculation applies to multiplayer calculation. Every pair of players is calculated in a similar manner and elo scores are summed up to one number. So if you are 1st, you win vs all players. If you are 2nd, you lose to the winner and win vs others.

You don't get any fixed number of points based on your placement. That's not how elo works.

I know how it works. But for fixed set of players, and for fixed position, you get fixed points, regardless of the order. If you are 700, and beat 1000, you get lots of points, of course. But if you at the same time lose to 400, you lose a lot too. If the order is opposite, you gain a lirrle and lose a little. But the total is same (0 in this case). Since you have a calculator, you can try.

The win and loss in Elo calculation are always separated by K points (for K factor = K). That is easily derived from the formula. Also, I think we can agree that if you win, the order of other players does not matter. So, let's say you get X points (X depends on Elos). But now, based on two above points, for second place, you get X-K, regardless of who you lose. For third place you get X-2K. And so on.

[Stroom]

You are constantly ignoring 'runaway leaders or clear winners' and 'when the chance to get the first place is slim'. Stop beating a straw man.

But.. even that does not matter. Especially then, playing for 2nd place is just as pointless. If you lose, you lose. Trying to lose elo based on a technicality of the system is stupid.

[Stroom]

I know how it works. But for fixed set of players, and for fixed position, you get fixed points, regardless of the order. If you are 700, and beat 1000, you get lots of points, of course. But if you at the same time lose to 400, you lose a lot too. If the order is opposite, you gain a lirrle and lose a little. But the total is same (0 in this case). Since you have a calculator, you can try.

The win and loss in Elo calculation are always separated by K points (for K factor = K). That is easily derived from the formula. Also, I think we can agree that if you win, the order of other players does not matter. So, let's say you get X points (X depends on Elos). But now, based on two above points, for second place, you get X-K, regardless of who you lose. For third place you get X-2K. And so on.

K is the same for the calculation and doesn't matter for the deltas. The order of players definitely matters, at least with the current system. X is different for each pair of players if their elos are different. That's the whole point. You clearly don't understand how the formulas work.

If 1st place is 700, you are 2nd place with 700 and the 3rd place is 1000 then you gain more elo than if you had 1000, 700, 700. So your main goal is to make 1000 lose. If the game allows players to team up against one player, there is a lot of incentive to make highest elo to lose so everyone else gets more points out of that. For 1st place it doesn't matter if 1000 is 2nd or 3rd or further down the line. For 2nd place it still matters.

If you have 400, 700, 1000, sure, it changes a bit but it is easy to understand that 1000 is more likely to win so beating him brings more points to everyone. Then you look at the next player you have to beat. As 700, your next opponent is 400... but since he is less skilled, it should be easier to beat him. 400 and 1000 ganging up on 700 doesn't really make much sense as 400 has a better chance to get 1st place vs 700 not 1000. But how often do you actually have such wide range of players in one game anyway?

But that is based on the current system where 2nd place can gain elo by position. If only 1st place would give points, it would be different and then you definitely want to target the highest elo player first (to bring down their chance to win).

[Tulivuori]

I know how it works. But for fixed set of players, and for fixed position, you get fixed points, regardless of the order. If you are 700, and beat 1000, you get lots of points, of course. But if you at the same time lose to 400, you lose a lot too. If the order is opposite, you gain a lirrle and lose a little. But the total is same (0 in this case). Since you have a calculator, you can try.

The win and loss in Elo calculation are always separated by K points (for K factor = K). That is easily derived from the formula. Also, I think we can agree that if you win, the order of other players does not matter. So, let's say you get X points (X depends on Elos). But now, based on two above points, for second place, you get X-K, regardless of who you lose. For third place you get X-2K. And so on.

K is the same for the calculation and doesn't matter for the deltas. The order of players definitely matters, at least with the current system. X is different for each pair of players if their elos are different. That's the whole point. You clearly don't understand how the formulas work.

If 1st place is 700, you are 2nd place with 700 and the 3rd place is 1000 then you gain more elo than if you had 1000, 700, 700. So your main goal is to make 1000 lose. If the game allows players to team up against one player, there is a lot of incentive to make highest elo to lose so everyone else gets more points out of that. For 1st place it doesn't matter if 1000 is 2nd or 3rd or further down the line. For 2nd place it still matters.

If you have 400, 700, 1000, sure, it changes a bit but it is easy to understand that 1000 is more likely to win so beating him brings more points to everyone. Then you look at the next player you have to beat. As 700, your next opponent is 400... but since he is less skilled, it should be easier to beat him. 400 and 1000 ganging up on 700 doesn't really make much sense as 400 has a better chance to get 1st place vs 700 not 1000. But how often do you actually have such wide range of players in one game anyway?

But that is based on the current system where 2nd place can gain elo by position. If only 1st place would give points, it would be different and then you definitely want to target the highest elo player first (to bring down their chance to win).

I meant the X is the total points you get from the win (sum of pairwise gains). It does not depends on the order. It's you who don't understand how it works.

1000-you-700 and 700-you-1000 is all the same.

[Stroom]

I meant the X is the total points you get from the win (sum of pairwise gains). It does not depends on the order. It's you who don't understand how it works.

1000-you-700 and 700-you-1000 is all the same.

OK, I guess you are right about this.

But the general point is that if 1000 has a higher chance of winning, it would still make sense to make him lose. And then you have a higher chance of winning against the other player.

So if 1000 is ALWAYS the last, then the other players have a more even chance to get 1st place.

Easier to turn 700-you-1000 into you-700-1000 than 1000-you-700 into you-1000-700.

Either way, this system seems stupid that you are playing for 2nd place, not to win the whole game.

[Tulivuori]

If the game is such that you can hinder a specific opponent, then hindering the best might optimise your expected finish, giving the best Elo gain also. However, it might be that the best would revenge, giving the third player a win, and you might end up last. So it's not so straightforward and depends on game dynamics.

But anyway, the current system is indeed about optimising the average position, not optimising the win (1st) rate. I guess it depends on the view point what one prefers. But I would think there are more situations where "I have no chance to win, let's give up" (if only win was worth something) than "I have a chance to win, but I optimise my Elo if I aim for second" (in current system).