the *decreasing ELO gain if you win against the same players rule*

[joyoy]

The problem that the Elo reduction is solving is when someone wants to boost their Elo by repeatedly playing the same much-weaker player (possibly fixed, possibly not). This has nothing to do with interaction-levels in the game.

There are good reasons to think that the cure is worse than disease, but they don't have to do with the particular game or the interaction within it.

where is the problem?

that it the Elo system. the lower the other player, the much less points you win and the more you can lose. it is mathematically fair.
the issue at hand totally has to do with interaction (or no interaction in this case).

[joyoy]

have you read anything?
then why do you write that, and please can you give reasons?
otherwise such a comment is pretty meaningless.

just using a different word like 'grinding' for the same problem makes no difference. it is just the simpler phrase of what I described long and detailed, what is unproductive or flawed about this rule.

I wrote that because you say that your game is a unique snowflake and the rule shouldn't apply to it. You want us to understand your situation but you did not demonstrate understanding of why this rule is in place.

What I meant by grinding was more eloquently explained by Emerson_Matt: its a real problem.

And at the risk of making you even more angry at me, it's a problem caused by people who pay too much attention to their ELO, like you do. If you want competition, you should play Arena. As long as people are allowed to pick their opponents and game settings, ELO will not mean much.

I'm not sure the solution is ideal, but at the very least it gives less incentive to play uneven matches, and that probably means less newer or weaker players discouraged from the beating.

interesting that you can determine my intentions or emotions, when I was still writing something neutral. maybe you can avoid insinutations please.
the same when you presuppose I care too much about my Elo.

from whose perspective? have you even played with me once?
I have a personal goal of 1200. I wont reply on that any further since it is futile and was intrusive.

your very first sentence is wrong as well. nowhere did I write gamme logic in unique in having no gameplay interaction.
if you want to answer again from now, I will appreciate it but only if you stop the biases. thanks

[Jellby]

the only think that counts is the time.

Wait... are you saying that if you take say 20 seconds your elo change will be the same, regardless of whether your opponent takes 15 or 30 seconds?

I don't believe it without further evidence. All I have seen so far indicates that the elo changes are determined by the relative times. So that if you take 20 seconds and your opponent takes 21, you win and you get some elo, and if you take 6 minutes and your opponent takes 20 minutes, you win, and you get exactly the same elo (assuming elos before the match are the same in the two cases, of course). So it's not "just" time, but time compared to the other players.

[joyoy]

yes the time counts in comparison. time relative to others..is still just time / nothing else but the time counts

[Ceaseless]

It's an anti-boosting measure. You can't make two accounts, have one lose to the other 1000 times, and get to the top that way since the elo decays makes it a 0. There are many objections to it, sure, but the nature of a game being interactive or not doesn't really address one of the core issues behind its implementation.

[Emerson_Matt]

The problem that the Elo reduction is solving is when someone wants to boost their Elo by repeatedly playing the same much-weaker player (possibly fixed, possibly not). This has nothing to do with interaction-levels in the game.

There are good reasons to think that the cure is worse than disease, but they don't have to do with the particular game or the interaction within it.

where is the problem?

that it the Elo system. the lower the other player, the much less points you win and the more you can lose. it is mathematically fair.
the issue at hand totally has to do with interaction (or no interaction in this case).

Yes, that it corrupts the Elo system is one of the arguments against this practice. This is true for all games and nothing to do with how interactive the game is.

Imagine the cheating version, which is, I think, certainly worth discouraging. A player makes a second account and then plays lots of games between their two accounts, the first one always winning. This can be done for any two player game. The Elo tail-off for repeated victories stops it working. This is the purpose, or at least one of the purposes, of it.

Again, you might not think that this is worth the price of corrupting the Elo system for honest players, but this has nothing to do with the particular game.

[joyoy]

The problem that the Elo reduction is solving is when someone wants to boost their Elo by repeatedly playing the same much-weaker player (possibly fixed, possibly not). This has nothing to do with interaction-levels in the game.

There are good reasons to think that the cure is worse than disease, but they don't have to do with the particular game or the interaction within it.

where is the problem?

that it the Elo system. the lower the other player, the much less points you win and the more you can lose. it is mathematically fair.
the issue at hand totally has to do with interaction (or no interaction in this case).

Yes, that it corrupts the Elo system is one of the arguments against this practice. This is true for all games and nothing to do with how interactive the game is.

Imagine the cheating version, which is, I think, certainly worth discouraging. A player makes a second account and then plays lots of games between their two accounts, the first one always winning. This can be done for any two player game. The Elo tail-off for repeated victories stops it working. This is the purpose, or at least one of the purposes, of it.

Again, you might not think that this is worth the price of corrupting the Elo system for honest players, but this has nothing to do with the particular game.

yes, 'I've been told by someone before that part of the rule is about containing cheating.
then simply all the remaining part (advatanged relative strategies and styles) is removed for games like Gamme Logic. which means from my evaluation at least 60% of the Elo decay should be removed.

[BarnardsStar]

The problem that the Elo reduction is solving is when someone wants to boost their Elo by repeatedly playing the same much-weaker player (possibly fixed, possibly not). This has nothing to do with interaction-levels in the game.

There are good reasons to think that the cure is worse than disease, but they don't have to do with the particular game or the interaction within it.

where is the problem?

that it the Elo system. the lower the other player, the much less points you win and the more you can lose. it is mathematically fair.
the issue at hand totally has to do with interaction (or no interaction in this case).

I can’t tell if you are being deliberately obtuse, but on the benefit of the doubt let me draw you a picture:

One person owns two accounts, A and B. Account A only ever plays account B, nobody else. And B always throws the game to A. Meanwhile, B also plays a wide variety of other people and thus keeps their Elo up at their true level, but by always losing to A they are siphoning Elo to A and putting them at a vastly elevated level.

None of this makes your game any different from any other. If you can throw the game, this applies.

It is a classic illustration of Goodhart’s Law: “any measure that becomes a target ceases to be a good measure.” Elo has become a target in and of itself.

[Emerson_Matt]

This is true of all games as much as it is for Gamme Logic, and is a reasonable objection that many people share (although I'm not sure where the 60% number comes from).

[Jellby]

All that matters for elo is who wins and who loses, player styles and strategies are irrelevant.

All the reason for the consecutive-wins reduction is based on who wins and who loses, player styles and strategies are irrelevant.

There are many reasons against the consecutive-wins reduction, and probably most people are against it, but the extent of interaction in games is not one of them, because it has nothing to do either with elo or with the reduction. All that matters is that someone wins and someone loses.