Playing a three-player game feels unfair

[PonyL_7766]

Playing a three-player game feels unfair for a player with notable higher elo.

Logically, the other two players should band together to suppress the player with the highest ELO score in order to get more chances for personal triumph or simply elo increase, but emotionally, I find this hard to accept. For I couldn't help but feel sorry for the player who performed better, and sometimes I felt that my victory or apparent elo upsurge was not deserved.

Personally, I also have some experiences when I myself roled the elo-higher player against two allied players,feeling way too challenging when facing targeting of two players at the same time.

So, is there something wrong with my understanding of three-player games?

In your opinion, is the ELO mechanism for multiplayer games on the BGA platform reasonable?

After all, the recommended number of players for the original version of Splendor on the BGA platform is three, but is it actually more appropriate for two or four players?

Is it debatable to adopt a tournament format for three-player games? I would be happy to hear more insights and criticisms from experienced players or new players. Thank you for attention and reply

[Ceaseless]

If you wanted a fairer game, the answer was always to play 2 player. This is the norm of games with any relevant interaction, and Splendor is not one of the exceptions. BGA's 3-player recommendation is nonsense.