I‘ve said it before elsewhere:
Its an old and lame discussion, which also occurs in other games (even such with more skill and less luck than hearts, like wizard), with the requesters just wanting their idea implemented, but not caring about arguments about why not to. Luckily never to any success.
What all that are pushing for „only winning matters“ are ignoring is that, at some point, for the last ppl, a victory is very unlikely / almost impossible. What should they do, instead of gunning for the opponent in reach? Abandon the game? I doubt that would make anyone more happy. Or they could make sure that the leader wins asap, so that a new game and equal winning chances can happen asap. But wait, that‘s what you already complain about, so…
Btw, that‘s also what happens in our real games, ppl who dont see their chance to win anymore gun at the opponents in reach. We never had a discussion that this would be wrong, and that they instead just should give up and make sure they play passively & neutrally. With 1-2 very strong / dominant players in the game, the excitement on the table for making 2nd / 3rd / not last sometimes even is larger than for the winner, that was expected to win anyway.
If you want to play like that, put it into the table description / clarify with everyone upfront / play only with ppl that think alike, but dont expect the dev to force everyone to play as you think is right, and that wont solve the problem for you either.
Because, pretty certainly, your actual problem here is not the ELO system, but that in these games the other players, to some degree, are flexible whom to play against, and that this doesnt always match with whom you think they should play against. That will never be the case, no matter how you implement the rewards. So maybe better play cooperative or 2 player/team games, or games with less flexibility whom to play against (good luck finding that).
Its an old and lame discussion, which also occurs in other games (even such with more skill and less luck than hearts, like wizard), with the requesters just wanting their idea implemented, but not caring about arguments about why not to. Luckily never to any success.
What all that are pushing for „only winning matters“ are ignoring is that, at some point, for the last ppl, a victory is very unlikely / almost impossible. What should they do, instead of gunning for the opponent in reach? Abandon the game? I doubt that would make anyone more happy. Or they could make sure that the leader wins asap, so that a new game and equal winning chances can happen asap. But wait, that‘s what you already complain about, so…
Btw, that‘s also what happens in our real games, ppl who dont see their chance to win anymore gun at the opponents in reach. We never had a discussion that this would be wrong, and that they instead just should give up and make sure they play passively & neutrally. With 1-2 very strong / dominant players in the game, the excitement on the table for making 2nd / 3rd / not last sometimes even is larger than for the winner, that was expected to win anyway.
If you want to play like that, put it into the table description / clarify with everyone upfront / play only with ppl that think alike, but dont expect the dev to force everyone to play as you think is right, and that wont solve the problem for you either.
Because, pretty certainly, your actual problem here is not the ELO system, but that in these games the other players, to some degree, are flexible whom to play against, and that this doesnt always match with whom you think they should play against. That will never be the case, no matter how you implement the rewards. So maybe better play cooperative or 2 player/team games, or games with less flexibility whom to play against (good luck finding that).