🌿ELO System Updates

[LesserJester]

Yeah sadly this appears to be the case. I just went up a grade in hardback, and got no XP notification, no award. In a competitive game FFS. BGA again, what is the point of removing ELO from a competitive game? Can you please respond on this.

Seriously? I thought the whole point of keeping elo in the background was to still be able to achieve these. This is even more of a reason to revert these changes!

And although only a few people are posting more often to keep this thread alive, there are lots of us who still follow it and chime in once in a while to show we are still invested in this. I have started telling people I play against to come to this forum so more people are aware of what is happening.

Yes, can confirm, still no award received.

Yeah sadly this appears to be the case. I just went up a grade in hardback, and got no XP notification, no award. In a competitive game FFS. BGA again, what is the point of removing ELO from a competitive game? Can you please respond on this.

Hi! So I'm the community manager for Fowers Games. I talked a bit about this with quietmint, who did the BGA adaptation. Apparently BGA fundamentally doesn't support a game that can be competitive OR co-op, so it treats it as co-op. Which is annoying, but there's not much we can do about it.

Hi. Thanks for posting. Respectfully, that seems a bit too simple. BGA no longer supports the game in two modes but they used to. It was all fine. Someone at BGA has got their knickers in a anti-ELO twist over je ne se quois and suddenly they say they no longer support it, but they did before, and they can again, and frankly they should.

If it were my game I'd be knocking their heads and telling them to revert or pulling the rights. Otherwise you are allowing your game to be watered down against your own wishes. That seems like madness to me. Tbh I'd rather you did the latter if they won't budge, and host it elsewhere. I'd move in an instant.

I guess the real question is who owns the code quietmint developed? Are they leasing it from you, or do they own the rights to the code itself? Even if they do own it there's nothing stopping a new build from scratch on a new site. It's just time, hassle, and presumably, somewhere along the line, money, assuming there's not been any exclusive rights signed over to BGA. I can't imagine any good company lawyer agreeing to the latter in a non-terminable/unlimited way.

FYI I created a table this evening for a 2p game, I have waited 48 minutes and not one joiner. Kill ELO and watch players stop coming. Who'd have guessed.

[TricksyFox]

Hi. Thanks for posting. Respectfully, that seems a bit too simple. BGA no longer supports the game in two modes but they used to. It was all fine. Someone at BGA has got their knickers in a anti-ELO twist over je ne se quois and suddenly they say they no longer support it, but they did before, and they can again, and frankly they should.

I don't know if that's the case, actually. When the ELO was the same regardless, the distinction didn't matter, right? So my guess is that previously the game was in two modes but treated all the same on the back end, but now that the ELO is different it suddenly matters. Again, this is just my guess - I'm not a dev, and I haven't looked into it. Of course, either way it's pretty silly, but then again what about these changes aren't? (That's player!Tricksy talking, not CM!Tricksy)

If it were my game I'd be knocking their heads and telling them to revert or pulling the rights. Otherwise you are allowing your game to be watered down against your own wishes. That seems like madness to me. Tbh I'd rather you did the latter if they won't budge, and host it elsewhere. I'd move in an instant.

We're probably not going to do that, but I'm going to be keeping an eye on the data. That being said, there *are* alternatives for Hardback and Burgle Bros... I just can't advertise them here. (she said, coyly)

[LesserJester]

Hi. Thanks for posting. Respectfully, that seems a bit too simple. BGA no longer supports the game in two modes but they used to. It was all fine. Someone at BGA has got their knickers in a anti-ELO twist over je ne se quois and suddenly they say they no longer support it, but they did before, and they can again, and frankly they should.

I don't know if that's the case, actually. When the ELO was the same regardless, the distinction didn't matter, right? So my guess is that previously the game was in two modes but treated all the same on the back end, but now that the ELO is different it suddenly matters. Again, this is just my guess - I'm not a dev, and I haven't looked into it. Of course, either way it's pretty silly, but then again what about these changes aren't? (That's player!Tricksy talking, not CM!Tricksy)

If it were my game I'd be knocking their heads and telling them to revert or pulling the rights. Otherwise you are allowing your game to be watered down against your own wishes. That seems like madness to me. Tbh I'd rather you did the latter if they won't budge, and host it elsewhere. I'd move in an instant.

We're probably not going to do that, but I'm going to be keeping an eye on the data. That being said, there *are* alternatives for Hardback and Burgle Bros... I just can't advertise them here. (she said, coyly)

Maybe you should advertise them here. It doesn't look like anyone from BGA is reading this thread anymore. I mean if they were they'd reply to h_illes and the others right?

The required solution could have been to make coop modes "friendly game" only. Friendly games are already non-scoring for ELO in ALL games/titles/whatever the term is. It already forces this "friendly only" for solo games and handles that just fine side-by-side with competitive ELO. I've not seen the code but I'd wager a minor tweak would bring all the hardback coop game options into it. It might depend how much is game specific vs broader BGA back-end that applies to all games as to how much work would be needed, but I'd be amazed if this wasn't relatively straightforward as things go.

What would be the downside? Some people might grumble about the loss of time limit perhaps (assuming anyone actually uses those modes - do they?) If so in an ideal world BGA would then reinstate the old game options for having time limits on friendly games (and while they're at it bringing back the much lamented no-time-limit competitive turnbased mode) which I'm told used to be available on all titles back in the good ol' days. I wouldn't mind too much about those either way though as I wouldn't be using them!

[The Nuzzer]

Kill ELO and watch players stop coming. Who'd have guessed.

You'd think the publishers would want as many people playing as possible.

I'm Alpha testing * and love it. I've now purchased the game plus the Big Box for my gaming group.

I was starting to get into Hanabi but I don't enjoy playing without the added factor of ELO so I've stopped. Would I have purchased the game? Who knows - can't say for sure. I can say for sure that I won't be now that I'm not playing it.

*Moderator edit: Please respect the request made at the top of the Alpha group page not to discuss Alpha games outside of the reviewer group.

[TricksyFox]

Maybe you should advertise them here. It doesn't look like anyone from BGA is reading this thread anymore. I mean if they were they'd reply to h_illes and the others right?

Well they did manage to flag one of h_illes posts for "defamation" so who knows. My guess is that moderators are around, but admins with any decision making powers are not. Which isn't the mods fault, but does leave a kind of gross taste in one's mouth.

[h_illes]

So... I already cancelled my premium subscription, but the current period is already paid for. So I continue playing. Mostly Arena, where I can't choose my opponents. Due to the penalty for consecutive wins, my ELO rating is going down. Meanwhile, some other top players play much fewer games (~1 game/week), so they avoid the penalty. Why am I penalized for playing? That's the point of the entire site! Also, why is there no response after two months? Is this really how you treat paying customers? This is utterly disgraceful.

[6element]

Why am I penalized for playing? That's the point of the entire site!

This is precisely the purpose of the Elo stealing "feature" - to punish active strong players, so they play less, or quit. And it is working as intended. There is no other logical explanation.

PS: Pretty much, my original assessment was that Elo stealing was a not well thought out, but well intended feature, so folks needed feedback to realize how annoying and unfair it was.

When sufficient amount of feedback has been provided and nothing happened, my thinking was that the implementer became defensive ("this is my design and who are they to question my competence?" or something like that) and decided to wait for the situation to cool down simultaneously punishing the players for providing negative feedback.

Well, there is even more feedback now, some is polite, some isn't, and 2.5 million views of the thread. It is hard to ignore this thread, it is obvious the "feature" is still not desired by players.

So my current thinking - the original intention was to reduce server cost by making the service less comfortable for players, who are playing too much. Probably, the alternative was to introduce a monthly table creation cap, or 2nd tier subscription, or something. They decided to annoy active strong players so they'll leave, and less tables will be created. Weird choice, but whatever. This is at least somewhat logical.

This reminds me of an "all you can eat" sushi restaurant where after some time waiters started forgetting rare fish orders for our party and were only bringing generic food (like salmon and tuna). "It is still all you can eat, but you're clearly ordering too much" kind of service.

[RicardoRix]

Someone at BGA has got their knickers in a anti-ELO twist over je ne se quois and suddenly they say they no longer support it, but they did before, and they can again, and frankly they should.

I think you mean je ne se pas.
Not quite a mixed-metaphor, but this mistake did make me smile. Kinda turns it into a sarky comment. BGA's special little something of a cock-up.

[teallite]

Why am I penalized for playing? That's the point of the entire site! Also, why is there no response after two months? Is this really how you treat paying customers?

Well, BGA needs active players in order to increase overall engagement. And BGA needs competition between players in order to increase overall engagement. But there are different kinds of active players and different kinds of competition. If you actively play different games with different people then overall engagement increases. If you actively play one or several games with the same group of people then you isolate yourself and overall engagement decreases. Serious competition, sports-like competition also interests only a small amount of players. And such competition may discourage casual players from participating. Light competition, everybody-can-win competition is much better. Now, I'm not saying that BGA made these changes to target highly competitive players focused on specific games. But as long as these changes don't negatively affect the core audience, BGA may experiment, be negligent and wait to see how things play out. And things may actually play out in their favor.

[h_illes]

Why am I penalized for playing? That's the point of the entire site! Also, why is there no response after two months? Is this really how you treat paying customers?

Well, BGA needs active players in order to increase overall engagement. And BGA needs competition between players in order to increase overall engagement. But there are different kinds of active players and different kinds of competition. If you actively play different games with different people then overall engagement increases. If you actively play one or several games with the same group of people then you isolate yourself and overall engagement decreases. Serious competition, sports-like competition also interests only a small amount of players. And such competition may discourage casual players from participating. Light competition, everybody-can-win competition is much better. Now, I'm not saying that BGA made these changes to target highly competitive players focused on specific games. But as long as these changes don't negatively affect the core audience, BGA may experiment, be negligent and wait to see how things play out. And things may actually play out in their favor.

Maybe, but why don't they come out and confirm that?