Does ELO make Love Letter quite a different game?

[Romain672]

For get the first place in Love Letter, the best strategy between attacking the person who lead or the person who are last, is like the Prisoner's dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) : if everybody focus the person who are last, it's nice for all the the other players.
If one doesn't do that, he will take a bigger advantage on all other players.

Lords of Xidit is an other good example for elo [rule : on a 4player game, there is three different goal on the game, the person who have the less point in the first goal is eliminated (4th : elo--), then between the 3 other : the person who have the less point in the second goal is eliminated (3rd : elo-), and finally the last goal will decide who will won].
So if you concentrate all your effort on the first two goal, you will finish second, and won elo. But the game will have no interest.
In this game, i really found that give credits only on the first player is needed.

Perhaps create two different solution for calculate elo, and let the player choose between them ? Or attribute an 'elo calculation' on each game ? (only the first player gain elo, or like it is actually ?)

[Peyrol]

The Elo rating system was designed for two player games. The difference in rating between two players determines the probability that one player will defeat the other. Extrapolating from that, the difference in rating between two players in a 3+ player game means- well, what exactly? The likelihood that one player will rank higher than the other in that game? How would one calculate the probability that one player will win the game with more than two rating values to consider? Why would players place so much value on a number when it's not even clear in a statistical sense what that number means?

I agree that a different formula, which would encourage cooperation among players who are behind to stop the player in the lead, would make any 3+ player game more enjoyable.

[demiurgsage]

I don't like Elo on BGA too. I created a topic to discuss its minuses. Please write your ideas in that topic. Sourisdudesert said that they plan to make some changes in the rating system and to create a leaderboard. So your voice can be heard.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10591

[Liallan]

I also want to emphasize, once again, that Love Letter is a LUCK BASED game, and because of that, it's possible that your opponents, even the one who's leading, will have a couple rounds of terrible cards. Why give up and assume you know who the winner is already? Why assume that there's no chance you can come in first place? That's a defeatist attitude that absolutely makes no sense to me when it comes to this game. This is not Puerto Rico or Madeira, where it may be impossible to stop someone from winning and playing for second or third makes sense.

Apparently you conveniently missed this paragraph:

Besides, I DO play to win, but if I feel fairly strongly that I can't, then I'll go for next best thing. At what point I might do that will depend on the game. I was talking about the concept in general and each game is different. I think you're assuming I just go around "settling" all the time. Not that it matters. If that's what I want to do, I have a right to do that.

The thread might have started on Love Letter but it led to a discussion about ELO in general in multi-player games, and I was making a general comment. I said so, and I said every game is different. You are completely ignoring that. I was also addressing the concept of people wanting the site to determine how people ought to play their games, based on what certain individuals want and only what they want. I also stated this. I was not, and have not been, talking about Love Letter specifically. If you want to disagree, at least read and stop ignoring important parts of what I'm saying.

Oh, wait, that's right - ELO only applies to Love Letter and these proposed changes won't affect any other game. Dummy me.

I'm well aware that there are times when someone can come from behind, and there are games where it ain't over til it's over. But there are games, or a point in the game, when yes, I do know I can't win. Since your only view is that I'm a defeatist, you must think that situation is impossible. Really? (There are games where at a certain point in the game, I know I will win. That goes both ways.)

And "defeatist" is a pretty strong term for a game anyway. It's like you think a game is real life or something.

[Shaq Jenkins]

I also want to emphasize, once again, that Love Letter is a LUCK BASED game, and because of that, it's possible that your opponents, even the one who's leading, will have a couple rounds of terrible cards. Why give up and assume you know who the winner is already? Why assume that there's no chance you can come in first place? That's a defeatist attitude that absolutely makes no sense to me when it comes to this game. This is not Puerto Rico or Madeira, where it may be impossible to stop someone from winning and playing for second or third makes sense.

Apparently you conveniently missed this paragraph:

Besides, I DO play to win, but if I feel fairly strongly that I can't, then I'll go for next best thing. At what point I might do that will depend on the game. I was talking about the concept in general and each game is different. I think you're assuming I just go around "settling" all the time. Not that it matters. If that's what I want to do, I have a right to do that.

The thread might have started on Love Letter but it led to a discussion about ELO in general in multi-player games, and I was making a general comment. I said so, and I said every game is different. You are completely ignoring that. I was also addressing the concept of people wanting the site to determine how people ought to play their games, based on what certain individuals want and only what they want. I also stated this. I was not, and have not been, talking about Love Letter specifically. If you want to disagree, at least read and stop ignoring important parts of what I'm saying.

Oh, wait, that's right - ELO only applies to Love Letter and these proposed changes won't affect any other game. Dummy me.

I'm well aware that there are times when someone can come from behind, and there are games where it ain't over til it's over. But there are games, or a point in the game, when yes, I do know I can't win. Since your only view is that I'm a defeatist, you must think that situation is impossible. Really? (There are games where at a certain point in the game, I know I will win. That goes both ways.)

And "defeatist" is a pretty strong term for a game anyway. It's like you think a game is real life or something.

...

...

LOL. I'm literally laughing out loud at how offended you are right now.

You seemed to conveniently forget that in my comment, I was replying to sprockitz (since I clearly quoted him), and not you. I was agreeing with a point he made and offering a reason for why I support his comment. Why this offended you so much is baffling.

I really think you just like to argue for argument's sake. You're constantly posting in these forums arguing with others when most of the time, you completely misunderstand their comments or take extreme offense to one minor thing they said. I don't mind if people disagree with me, but at least get your facts straight.