Quantum ELO weirdness

[Babyrhinorainbows]

In a game of quantum where there are three or more players it treats everyone but the winner as if they are tied for last. This means that the elo loss is divided equally among the losers. It would probably make more sense if it used the number of quantum cubes possessed as a tie breaker since someone who collected 3 cubes is in a much better position than someone who hasn't collected any.

[Quinarbre]

However, what the rules state is: the player who places his last cube wins, everyone else loses. It wouldn't make sense if the second player (who lost) could win ELO points just because he fared a bit less bad than the other ones.

Also, your proposal may change the way people play the game: if you see another player is leading the game, you may try to settle for 2nd position, and even push him towards victory to ensure your other opponents stay behind you. That would be against the spirit of the game as its designer intended it: it's a race, you're here to win it.

[Babyrhinorainbows]

The fact that people would play differently is kinda the point. If I am playing eg a game of Libertalia and am in last place, then playing for next-to-last-place makes the game stay fun even when you have no chance to win outright. That is why basically every other multiplayer game on here works that way.

On your other point: I'm not really concerned with what the manual says or what the creator intended. The point is that their intention does not mesh well with a rating system. Anyway, I'm not sure why the fact that it is a "race" makes it a zero-sum kinda deal. Races have bronze medalists too :s.

[Quinarbre]

I see your point, but I'm not drawing the same conclusions : playing for 2nd or 3rd place should keep the game fun even if you know you won't win, but there is no strong reason for tying "fun" to "having a consequence in the ELO rating". On the opposite, kingmaking will probably happen more often in the latter case than in the former.

You're right about bronze medalists... but who remembers them ?

[Oso]

I was thinking about it...

If you're playing Quantum in 3 or 4 players, you will have more chances to loss (66% in 3p and 75% in 4p), then you should be a good player and luckiest (it's a dice game).

Knowing these things, lot of people with lot of ELO (+1700) don't play with 3 or 4 because their chance of win ELO isn't high. Then like all games, people will play in 2 players.
ALSO, in 2 players the game is a DUEL, but in 3 or 4 the game has "DIPLOMACY" (some people play 2 vs 1 or 3 vs 1).

The game will be better (in BGA) with a Tie-break for the "no winners", then... people who has more cubes got a better place than others.

[pikiou]

Thought a lot about it and made my decision on the absence of a 3rd or 4th place is pretty final, I'd rather remove the game from BGA than change it.
I added a message at the start of the game to clarify the need to team up against any player ahead. In Quantum it's not kingmaking as long as you make sure you primarily slow the next player down.

The only ELO weirdness I can think of is that if you have a lower ELO than your opponents, the system rewards you for being second instead of 4th. I'll tell admins if I receive complains about it.

[Babyrhinorainbows]

I've pretty much decided that Quantum is not a good 3+ game on BGA anyway. It relies too much on diplomacy and the site isn't really built for communication.

[Jest Phulin]

The site is built for it -- people just don't use it. While it may seem like communicating with people who don't speak your native tongue is difficult, the direct link to google translate does make it pretty easy. It just takes a few more seconds. Which, when facing a time crunch is an obstacle, but not an insurmountable one.

[Babyrhinorainbows]

http://forum.boardgamearena.com/viewtop ... f=3&t=5045