Hi,
I have a friend who plays almost exclusively this game at 3 players, and he's getting quite disheartened that most 3 player games end up with a global loss of Elo.
This appears to be because the game is wrongly set as a "team" game, which means second place cannot gain Elo even if they should.
Here's an example of this situation : https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=516528557
In this table, the 2nd place player should have won 4 Elo (you can see it by hovering on the "+0" with your mouse), but instead he gets 0 because "you cannot gain Elo in case of team loss". As a result, the whole table is down 4 Elo total because of it.
This means that it's impossible to climb in Elo playing 3 player games. If 3 players of equal skill at 500 Elo kept playing versus each other, in a month or so they would all be at 400, then at 300, etc.
This does not happen in 2 player games (in fact, in 2 player games there is Elo inflation because of the protection given to people at 100 Elo or under), which seems quite unfair.
I have a friend who plays almost exclusively this game at 3 players, and he's getting quite disheartened that most 3 player games end up with a global loss of Elo.
This appears to be because the game is wrongly set as a "team" game, which means second place cannot gain Elo even if they should.
Here's an example of this situation : https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=516528557
In this table, the 2nd place player should have won 4 Elo (you can see it by hovering on the "+0" with your mouse), but instead he gets 0 because "you cannot gain Elo in case of team loss". As a result, the whole table is down 4 Elo total because of it.
This means that it's impossible to climb in Elo playing 3 player games. If 3 players of equal skill at 500 Elo kept playing versus each other, in a month or so they would all be at 400, then at 300, etc.
This does not happen in 2 player games (in fact, in 2 player games there is Elo inflation because of the protection given to people at 100 Elo or under), which seems quite unfair.
