So, have the games gotten better?

[Stroom]

I have noticed that there are more new master level players lately. Probably that's why. Different abandon rule does not seem to have anything to do with it.

[Ethereallz]

To some degree there is a separation between the player counts. The cap ELO you can get changes with player count. 5p being the highest.

I'm a bit rusty on the exact numbers since I haven't played in ages on here, but I think it's something like 700 avg elo in a 3p game gets +0, 975 for 5p game gets +0, and 2p / 4p is i think 950. Something like that anyway. Might be 925/950/975 or 950/975/1000.

Most of the people with the 1300/1400 ratings were abandoners spamming 2p games with low ranked people, but those guys almost never played 4p/5p.

Prior to the new graphics change era there were really only about 20-30 players with really low abandon rates (<2%).

FWIW, when it comes to the higher ranked masters games, I think grinding in 5p is more reliable than 2p once you remove abandons, especially if you're a purist and play 5 card variant. There are many more cases where you cannot win even with perfect play in 2p than there are in 5p. So, once your group has perfect play, 5 card is actually the easiest variant.

I'm sure this change will take some time to shake out the abandoners, and there will always be some that can cheat in 2p with table talk etc and prompting, but I would be very surprised if it doesn't improve things.

Though, I will say that prior to the change the most reliable way to assess whether or not to play with someone was to just view their abandon rates. Anything above say 10% was an absolute no for me, and I prefer those with < 5%. After this change it's not a valid metric anymore.

[Travis Hall]

So, once your group has perfect play, 5 card is actually the easiest variant.

I’m pretty sure you meant to say “… 5 player is actually the easiest variant”.

But I’ve got a lot of 5-player games in my history, and I’m yet to have a 5-player group I thought I could rely on for perfect play. It just doesn’t happen when playing with masters from among the broad community here. You could organise a group and train up together until your play is perfect, but I haven’t heard of such a group.

[orchid]

I've seen a noticeable decline in the quality of play in the last few months. Not sure what the problem is.

I think the average level of play in masters-only games has plummeted. It's painful and it's embarrassing.

Selection bias.

1. If a player plays enough to improve their hanabi skills, their perceived number of good players around them will decrease, as what defines a "good" player is relative. @jgpaladin, you and I both know I can pull up very embarrassing games for both of us in our history even when we were >700 and >800 ELO. Games you RTed me for, even

2. If RTs are handed out for every mediocre play, the remaining pool of players available to you will have a smaller percentage of experienced players, and the new/learning players who recently attained master ELO, will appear in higher frequency.

3. Conversely, if someone is a "bad" player, good players will give them RTs and then that player is only left with similarly inexperienced/"worse" players in their available potential teammates. This also means they will have less chance to learn from a more experienced player, and their mistakes perpetuate.

I agree I don't think it relates to abandon rate, only that you now have to sit out your games with these players. I do look up players and tend not to join games with players I don't recognize who have only 2-3p games or multiple bomb-out 5p games in their recent history. On non-work days when I am more patient and do join these tables, I try to give some grace to players I don't recognize and do extensive post-game discussions. We're all continually evolving our game play and you'll never get the good players you seek if new players can't learn, after all. Of course, I still RT those who are rude, petulant, and/or unwilling to learn.

[orchid]

I'm a bit rusty on the exact numbers since I haven't played in ages on here, but I think it's something like 700 avg elo in a 3p game gets +0, 975 for 5p game gets +0, and 2p / 4p is i think 950.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4814

There are many more cases where you cannot win even with perfect play in 2p than there are in 5p.

In full disclosure, I exclusively play 5p, so can't speak as well to 2p games, but a lower max win percentage does not equate harder game play. I lose all the time against kids in Candyland, but I wouldn't say that makes it harder than Hanabi. If you're discussing from a purely harder-to-gain-ELO standpoint (as opposed to harder game play), then when relying on reading multiple players at different skill levels and a wider range of potentially differing conventions, and then expecting those different level players to read everyone else the same, I'd argue 5p still is harder. As I referenced above, Travis and I already disagree on at least one convention, and he's one of the players I'm more familiar with. Expecting all 5 players to conform is much harder to attain than in a 2p game with limited conventions and only one other cluer.

So, once your group has perfect play, 5 card is actually the easiest variant.

Even if one did find 4 other congruent players to achieve your postulated "perfect play", the newest ELO update included power leveling to eliminate that opportunity.

[Travis Hall]

Even if one did find 4 other congruent players to achieve your postulated "perfect play", the newest ELO update included power leveling to eliminate that opportunity.

I’m not sure that that change actually affects Hanabi, due to the fact that in Hanabi we aren’t winning our ELO points from another player (but instead from an imaginary “bot”, which never actually has its rating reduced).

[jgpaladin]

deleting because of messed up formatting and i can't see a way to just delete the entry...

[jgpaladin]

I've seen a noticeable decline in the quality of play in the last few months. Not sure what the problem is.

I think the average level of play in masters-only games has plummeted. It's painful and it's embarrassing.

Selection bias.

Whatevs. My experience is my experience. And I kind of tire of you playing both sides of this fence with me, given how often you express shock that I haven't RT'd some players that I accidentally wind up suffering with.

1. If a player plays enough to improve their hanabi skills, their perceived number of good players around them will decrease, as what defines a "good" player is relative. @jgpaladin, you and I both know I can pull up very embarrassing games for both of us in our history even when we were >700 and >800 ELO. Games you RTed me for, even

I don't see the point of this. I am saying that the game feels worse to me now than it did a few months ago. For whatever reason. Yes, we are better players than we were a year ago when we were newly masters-level. Are my expectations for 700 elo players too high? Perhaps. You can't fault me for that any more though because the admins decided to hide the exact elo so all I get to see is "master" which has become kind of meaningless.

2. If RTs are handed out for every mediocre play, the remaining pool of players available to you will have a smaller percentage of experienced players, and the new/learning players who recently attained master ELO, will appear in higher frequency.

I'm waiting for your suggestion. Do I RT everyone I think isn't good enough or not? How am I supposed to find good games?

I'd also point out that most players who achieve master level think they're amazing at this game and have no interest in learning.

Oh, and then there are the players who refuse to discuss during the game because they think it's "cheating" because all they seem to think about is this current game's score instead of learning. And they never seem to stick around after to discuss, either. So they also will never get better.

3. Conversely, if someone is a "bad" player, good players will give them RTs and then that player is only left with similarly inexperienced/"worse" players in their available potential teammates. This also means they will have less chance to learn from a more experienced player, and their mistakes perpetuate.

Still waiting for your actual suggestion. I don't mind teaching people who are willing to learn, but they are few and far between. Also, I don't actually play Hanabi just so I can teach. I kind of want to enjoy the actual game myself, too.

I agree I don't think it relates to abandon rate, only that you now have to sit out your games with these players. I do look up players and tend not to join games with players I don't recognize who have only 2-3p games or multiple bomb-out 5p games in their recent history. On non-work days when I am more patient and do join these tables, I try to give some grace to players I don't recognize and do extensive post-game discussions. We're all continually evolving our game play and you'll never get the good players you seek if new players can't learn, after all. Of course, I still RT those who are rude, petulant, and/or unwilling to learn.

Must be nice to not pay for the site and be able to selectively join games. I, otoh, start 99% of my games and I can't possibly kick out the n00bs who join all the time, ignoring my stated request that they are actually experienced enough to do so.

[Malo77]

We need to convice BGA devs to implement some changes like:

>> Allow starting games with any free number as Elo prerequisite
You could set minimum Elo a 821 if you prefer
Would help solve the level difference between 700 masters and 1000 masters
and reduce the RT needed

if first point is not done and/or complicated, BGA could at least:

>> Create a grand master level at 900
and / or
>> Create a level every 100 elo point to help select starting level of the games from 100 to 1000


>> Create a game called Hanabi_2players and Hanabi_3+players
made them two different games in BGA if it is easier to implement this way to have separate elo


As a dev, this seems reasonable features to ask
and all I whish for 2024


Or maybee as players we can create some player groups to help select team mates in a given elo range:
...
- hanabi league 500-599
- hanabi league 600-699
- hanabi league 700-799
- hanabi league 800-899
- hanabi league 900-999
...
(other elo groups welcome too )

and post messages in them when we want to start a game with a given elo level only

[orchid]

I’m not sure that that change actually affects Hanabi, due to the fact that in Hanabi we aren’t winning our ELO points from another player (but instead from an imaginary “bot”, which never actually has its rating reduced).

Interesting. Would be curious to see what developers say, but I'm unsure how to find out.

Whatevs. My experience is my experience. And I kind of tire of you playing both sides of this fence with me, given how often you express shock that I haven't RT'd some players that I accidentally wind up suffering with.

Not trying to negate your experience, only stating what the contributing factors are. Being shocked that you haven't RTed someone doesn't mean that I think you should RT more, or that it would create a better experience. Only surprise at your selection criteria. RTing P********6 (who I would personally rank as one of the top tier 5p hanabi players on BGA) after 1 or 2 bad games, but not RTing another individual who consistently plays poorly and is unwilling to learn, is what my surprise was about. Our given and received RTs create our own selection bias.

I don't see the point of this. I am saying that the game feels worse to me now than it did a few months ago. For whatever reason. Yes, we are better players than we were a year ago when we were newly masters-level. Are my expectations for 700 elo players too high? Perhaps. You can't fault me for that any more though because the admins decided to hide the exact elo so all I get to see is "master" which has become kind of meaningless.

"The point" is that is another contributing factor to selection bias. Yes, I do think your expectations for 700 elo players are too high, especially when I've re-watched how we played at 700 and even 800 elo. Yes, you will feel there are more mistakes made by others because you're making less mistakes comparatively. Of course, those who routinely used to abandon games where people made mistakes will also feel there are more mistakes now, but that has not been my experience. I am not inferring you did this, but *am* stating someone you commonly play with occasionally did, thereby does effect some percentage of your games.

I agree the new hidden elo limits part of how some players understand or appropriately evaluate another player. But any new player I don't recognize, I personally treat as 700 elo or as a falsely elevated 1000 elo from 2p games. The elo doesn't give me more information, their game history does.

I'm waiting for your suggestion. Do I RT everyone I think isn't good enough or not? How am I supposed to find good games?

Lower expectations of new players or ones you're unfamiliar with. Willingness to teach. Not everyone has a hanabi friend to discuss strategy with and not everyone's chosen person to discuss with is going to accurately teach them. You got really lucky you had a good teacher very early on (unsolicited shoutout to our mutual friend). You're also gifted with above average intelligence and extensive general board gaming experience. Not everyone will plateau at the same skill level, or we would all be CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and Nobel Prize winners. But whether you want to teach or not, you can't expect better games without *someone* out there willing to teach.

I'd also point out that most players who achieve master level think they're amazing at this game and have no interest in learning.

Oh, and then there are the players who refuse to discuss during the game because they think it's "cheating" because all they seem to think about is this current game's score instead of learning. And they never seem to stick around after to discuss, either. So they also will never get better.

100% agree and those are the players I RT. I do give some grace to non-English speaking players because their inability to understand me does not equate to a lack of willingness to learn. But not at all saying you have to give that same leniency.

Still waiting for your actual suggestion. I don't mind teaching people who are willing to learn, but they are few and far between. Also, I don't actually play Hanabi just so I can teach. I kind of want to enjoy the actual game myself, too.

I agree that you do teach, and well. But not everyone is going to be open to learning when met with berating rudeness, and it's a little silly to expect them to be. They don't know you are any better of a player or teacher than the next rude player, they just know they don't want to be spoken to that way.

We all had to learn from somewhere. Even you and *** didn't understand layered after several games because no one was effectively explaining why it worked initially. Even the last time I checked the "greatest active hanabi players" group, their description of layered was glaringly incomplete, and did not even begin to touch on the why.

So for the games I don't expect a player to know more advanced conventions, I tailor my expectations and, in consequence, my clues. Many players will clue a layer no matter what. Sure, go for it. But don't get upset if the new player didn't understand it, even if they thought they could. Part of the game is playing the players.

Must be nice to not pay for the site and be able to selectively join games. I, otoh, start 99% of my games and I can't possibly kick out the n00bs who join all the time, ignoring my stated request that they are actually experienced enough to do so.

You can't possibly be telling me your game options as a paying premium player are more extensive than mine, can you?? but yes, my table selectivity is another option to try to achieve better games. I avoid tables with 2 or more wild cards unless I know I'm willing to teach that day.

And, because I know you'll disagree with my above suggestions for lower expectations or more teaching for better games, my last proposed solution: We should play together, again Lots to catch up on, on and off the site, but I couldn't resist replying on this forum, when you so blatantly called me out, twice, on what you were "still waiting" to hear.

Or maybee as players we can create some player groups to help select team mates in a given elo range:
...
- hanabi league 500-599
- hanabi league 600-699
- hanabi league 700-799
- hanabi league 800-899
- hanabi league 900-999
...
(other elo groups welcome too )

and post messages in them when we want to start a game with a given elo level only

I'm less interested in hanabi groups to join in such limited elo ranges as I think my current elo would not give me many options for a 5p table, but do agree this breakdown per elo score *and above* much like the table settings for reputation currently exists, would work. Eg. >700, >800, >900, >1000, rather than BGA's arbitrarily assigned expert vs master (and masters encompassing far too broad a range).