Gaining higher ELO by ending games faster

[femmebird]

I've noticed a trend among players who typically have ELO whereby they end the game fairly early on, at a point where they will win. It's not as enjoyable as playing to a near completion on the board. Anyone else noticed this?

[ExaltedAngel]

It's a competitive game, not a... solitaire mosaic builder?

[FrankJones]

I've noticed a trend among players who typically have ELO whereby they end the game fairly early on, at a point where they will win. It's not as enjoyable as playing to a near completion on the board. Anyone else noticed this?

??

It's not a co-op game. Yes, players with high Elo are probably good at ending the game with a win. I'm just as puzzled by your comment as ExaltedAngel is.

Also, what do you mean "early"? Every game of Azul I play ends in 5 rounds. Are you suggesting I should take a tile that would complete a horizontal row and place it on the penalty row at the bottom rather than completing the row? I'm really confused here.

[Jellby]

Perhaps the strategies used by high-elo players could give a hint on what strategies are more likely to win?

[sleepy-bear411]

I think earned ELOs depend on the ELO level difference between competing parts. If you win against higher ELO level person, then your earned ELO points will be higher, compared to the win against lower ELO level person.

[FrankJones]

I think earned ELOs depend on the ELO level difference between competing parts. If you win against higher ELO level person, then your earned ELO points will be higher, compared to the win against lower ELO level person.

Yes, that is indeed how Elo works.

(My apologies, I am unclear what this has to do with the topic at hand. The OP seems annoyed that people playing a competitive game make moves to end the game with a win rather than ... doing something worse and allowing the other player to have a chance to win.)

[Meeplelowda]

I think earned ELOs depend on the ELO level difference between competing parts. If you win against higher ELO level person, then your earned ELO points will be higher, compared to the win against lower ELO level person.

(My apologies, I am unclearw hat this has to do with the topic at hand. The OP seems annoyed that people playing a competitive game make moves to end the game with a win rather than ... doing something worse and allowing the other player to have a chance to win.)

That's because the topic of the post is poorly worded. It makes it sound like they think you get higher ELO when you end the game early, but really it's an observation that higher ELO players tend to end the game in five rounds (which is not "early" as another poster pointed out).

This is basically yet another post about how high ELO players are supposedly playing a game "wrong" (see Ticket to Ride, Carcassonne, etc.).

[femmebird]

I should clarify and say that I don't think players that employ the strategy of ending within 5 rounds are playing "wrong," and I agree that there is strategy to that. A more accurate summary of my sentiment is that I believe it makes for a more enjoyable game to play 5+ sounds, which I've enjoyed with higher ELO players, too.

[Romain672]

Yeah I got the same feeling after a few games.
I saw fastly that ending in 5 turns was great, and so good that everyone should goes for it, and so all games have 5 rounds.
But then the point of rules look weird. Instead of saying 'it's 5 rounds' they said that once a player finished a line that's the last round'.
And I liked the fact to have 6/7 rounds to be able to not be forced to do the lower lines first.

But game is extremely popular, so I suppose I'm in the minority?

[FrankJones]

Not to belabor the point - but - to the previous two posters - So, do you intentionally AVOID playing a tile in the first row? I'm not sure I understand what point is being made here. The goal is to score the most points and win. If you CAN place a tile that would complete a row and end the game with a win, are you saying you opt not to, and instead take penalty tiles? Why? That would be akin to declining to take an opponent's queen in chess. I don't get it.

I mean, even if I am not trying to end the game in 5 rounds, it's going to happen anyway, because the alternative is to take a lot of penalty tiles while my opponent ends the game anyway by completing the top row.

It takes literally one tile per round to complete the top row. Why would anyone NOT do this?