ELO gains only for the winner of a Hearts game

[Schweiger]

I would really love the Hearts games on BGA to have an option to only award ELO gains to the winner (three wins for Winner, one loss each for places two to four). A big part of the game of Hearts is the cooperation between those currently not leading against the leader and all the game theory that entails. The current ELO system destroys that dynamic since some people are content with second or even third place because of the ELO.

[Oso]

The ELO system don't work like you say. Hearts is a game who works with score, so... who has the HIGH score will win, the second will loss with the first and win the third and fourth... etc.

Maybe you should play with the same ELO (or at least below of 100 difference from first to the last).

[Schweiger]

To be clear:

ELO on current BGA hearts:
- 1st place gets wins against all other three
- 2nd place get wins against 3rd and 4th and loss against 1st
- 3rd place gets win aginst 4th and losses against 1st and 2nd
- 4th place gets losses against all other three

my suggestion for an option on BGA hearts:
- 1st place gets wins against all other three (just the same as it is now)
- 2nd, 3rd and 4th place get *one* loss each (against 1st place)
---> 2nd to 4th place are all equal losers - only 1st place counts

[pikiou]

There is a limit to ELO: a low ELO will get points even if they lose if a high ELO also lost.

I kind of imposed the absence of a 3rd place for Quantum (=only one winner) so it's doable. Many players are opposed to it but I'm afraid they just don't get it. They would probably rank Hanabi tables relative to the number of cards each player successfully played.

I don't know Hearts well enough to support your request, but habits will fiercely oppose the change you propose. Look at the list of bugs to fix for Hearts; if there are more than 10, forget it, the dev won't make the change.

[Schweiger]

Pikio, I understand your concern. That's why I suggested that as an *option* ("ELO on/ELO off/ELO gain only for winner") for those players who like to play that way. TBH if there was a choice between only the current system and my suggestion I would support the current system because it is widely accepted on BGA right now. But it does not support the way hearts is supposed to be played.

[intrepid]

Agree that the game of Hearts should be only one winner period . no ELO Points just simple win/losses.To many people playing for 2nd or ELO POINTS .In Hearts only One Wins.BGA Current ELO destroys the Integrity of the Game of Hearts.

[Scottyy]

I think this is a great suggestion and think it should be the standard ELO scoring method for Hearts. Making it an option would be an alternate option but with a single ELO number it seems like you would then be comparing apples to oranges (my ELO of 1600 playing with the option compared to your 1650 ELO playing without the option suggests your better at Hearts then me....when really we just got scored differently.....).

Honestly, I played Hearts as a kid and after playing Eurogames for years.....I'm kinda "new to Hearts" again. After playing here I realized that I wasn't as good as I thought I was So I did a little reading up on Hearts Strategy and everywhere I read it stresses that there is 'Only one winner in Hearts' and that the beauty of the game is in the silent politics that goes on between 3 players (2nd, 3rd, & 4th) vs. the player in 1st.

All this said, I think you could make the same argument for just about any game. It comes down to if 2nd place should be rewarded over 3rd. I find myself in many games "playing for the best score" as opposed to "playing to win"....and if I get 2nd place over really good players....I'm happy with it.