Why ELO doesn't suit to BGA

[Zetes]

I agree there is some difference in required skills for turn-based and real-time mode. I just don't think it is such a big deal. I have played real-time games on BGA for quite a long time. Then I switched to turn-based mode. I haven't noticed any significant change in my Elo, rankings, or my win-loss ratio.

You say it yourself, you passed from real time to turn based…obviously if you are a fast thinker and was a top guy playing real time you should be the same or better playing turn based.

Seems much more difficult switching from turn based only, to real time….

Anyway, if it doesn't matter to anyone what can I say more…it's so obvious the 2 playing styles are different…all the other things as multiplayer or 2player are obviously different but it is the game designer's will to be it like that. Which BG designer said his game can be played turn based? That is an external rule. Other kinda championship

Fast decision making is an ability most BG designers include in their design, turn based cancel that ability.

[Game Fondue]

There are definite and obvious differences between real-time and turn-based play, but since they are playing a game with the same rules --be it under different time constraints-- I do not think rating the games differently is a necessary change. I do think, however, that for the Legendary Inventors contest or other similar contests in the future, only players participating in real-time games should be eligible to win. Turn-based cheating is too difficult to evaluate and track in the short-term as compared with the real-time equivalent.

For much the same reasons, I also see no reason why players who play in larger than 2-player games would get different ELO treatment. In this case though, I do think there needs to be a change made to the ELO calculation for 3 or more player games. The system is clearly designed for head-to-head matchups and is far from perfect in larger games. I actually believe this thread was created to discuss this and I agree with a lot of the early ideas proposed about it. I do not have an exact proposal myself, but I do buy into the everyone should play to win argument of latexrhombus and that players from 2nd to last probably should get a full ELO loss to the player who won, but should gain points from those placing below them at a discounted rate.

[chrisa]

Seems much more difficult switching from turn based only, to real time….

I think that you are misunderstanding the motivations of most turn-based players. You seem to believe that we play in turn-based most only to have more time to think our moves (or to use secret helping tools).
This is simply not true.
I have permanently several turn-based games in progress and, believe me, I do not spend more time planning a move than I would in real-time mode (although, I should sometimes ). I often jump from one table to the other one, and play fast. It also often happens that the opponent is online at the same time, and we play some moves in live.
The only reason for which I rarely play real-time is that I don't want to be stuck behind my screen if the opponent is too slow (even fast mode is often too slow to my taste). I also want to avoid being expelled in case of connection issues or if the phone rings. In addition, turn-based mode allows taking time for chatting, which I enjoy doing with some players.

Which BG designer said his game can be played turn based? That is an external rule.

Which BG designer said that his game had to be played fast, or in limited time? Except for very specific games, I have never read that in any rulebook.

how can I become nr.1 on BGA if I am not able to get elo points from this top5 players called "we all play turn based" ?

The issue here is not completely related to turn-based or real-time playing. If player #1 does not want to play against you, in any mode, you won't be able to win points from him.

[Zetes]

I think that you are misunderstanding the motivations of most turn-based players

I really do know what you wrote and maybe you misunderstood me.

Nobody said BG designers put in the rulebook to play fast, if you read my post well you will see that I wrote that fast decision making is many times part of the strategy because the designer wanted that…so if you play turn based that strategy is cancelled, try to play Five Tribes turn based…and you cannot deny that playing turn based gives you the possibility to go in depth with maths how long you want, and as most boardgames are based on math….

I understand all the arguments you guys bring about chatting, line connection…that is not the point.

Also, your last quote doesn't make sense, I am saying I cannot play against the top overall BGA ranked guys because they play turn based and me not. That was to say that being it like that we'll never know who the real best player is, that is why I wanted 2 separate rankings also. But also, all the best players don't play the most popular games (as I do) so maybe I would never be able to cross 'em anyway

I will stop my posts here, if there is a reply I will open a thread "turn based vs real time", so we can gently shout there

[chrisa]

Nobody said BG designers put in the rulebook to play fast, if you read my post well you will see that I wrote that fast decision making is many times part of the strategy because the designer wanted that…

Well, I don't know many BG designers, but I am wondering what allows you to say that "fast decision making is part of the strategy"... I have never read that. Actually, I am far from being convinced that it is true for most of the games I know.
Now, if you play face to face with friends, some of them take ages to play a move: should that be considered as "real-time" or "turn-based" playing? Does it mean that they do not respect some "non-written-but-implicitly-meant-by-the-designer" game rules?

Also, your last quote doesn't make sense, I am saying I cannot play against the top overall BGA ranked guys because they play turn based and me not. That was to say that being it like that we'll never know who the real best player is, that is why I wanted 2 separate rankings also.

I'm not sure of what prevents you from playing turn based if you really want to play against these people. But I maintain that if top-ranked players do not want to play with you, whatever the playing mode, we'll never know who is the real best player.

As said by others before, we cannot have a special ranking for each way of playing, or for each sub-group of players. Let's keep it simple!

[glitter and doom]

I have permanently several turn-based games in progress and, believe me, I do not spend more time planning a move than I would in real-time mode (although, I should sometimes ). I often jump from one table to the other one, and play fast. It also often happens that the opponent is online at the same time, and we play some moves in live.

Same here.

[DrKarotte]

I have permanently several turn-based games in progress and, believe me, I do not spend more time planning a move than I would in real-time mode (although, I should sometimes ). I often jump from one table to the other one, and play fast. It also often happens that the opponent is online at the same time, and we play some moves in live.

Same here.

And here

[dudi2]

I have permanently several turn-based games in progress and, believe me, I do not spend more time planning a move than I would in real-time mode (although, I should sometimes ). I often jump from one table to the other one, and play fast. It also often happens that the opponent is online at the same time, and we play some moves in live.

Same here.

And here

And here

[HeyKid]

Not sure what the idea of these last few replies is, since WHY or HOW one plays turn based vs. real time has absolutely nothing to do with Zetes' point. The point is that you CAN spend hours thinking about moves if you want and have no time pressure. And the other point Zetes was making about boardgames by default being meant to have a faster pace is true for any game meant to be played face to face - it may not be listed in the rulebook, but it would be ridiculous to argue that designers anticipate people sitting across the table from each other for many days, potentially spending hours calculating each move.

You can make the same argument for the different players configuration (ex : Legendary Inventors is a complete different game with 2 players). And you can make the same argument for the different options. At the end, we could have many many rankings for each game, and the result will also be unsatisfactory. Among all the unsatisfactory solutions, we chose the simplest one.

This is a quote from an admin. I agree that you can make the argument that the different combinations of player numbers and settings each deserve their own ELO tracking. I actually find it hard to argue the case that they should NOT be tracked separately, and I fail to see why this is an unsatisfactory solution. All it would take is a bigger database, and form widgets at the top of each game ranking page for you to put in the settings you are interested in. So there would not be a best player of a game, just a best player of a game under each set of rules (which are each slightly different games, really). Why is this unsatisfactory? It sounds awesome to me.

Re: other things in the thread -
I have never cared about prestige points; I don't even know what they are for. I do like to see how high I can rank in ELO, because that number is actually tied to my particular skill at a game, and it doesn't make sense to me to reset it periodically, because then you can never tell how good anyone actually is. I like the idea of unlinking prestige from ELO (or just getting rid of it?), and of periodic ELO decay for the highest X% of players to make them maintain their rank and actually play.

[Zetes]

Not sure what the idea of these last few replies is, since WHY or HOW one plays turn based vs. real time has absolutely nothing to do with Zetes' point.

That's what I was thinking when I saw these last posts

but I am wondering what allows you to say that "fast decision making is part of the strategy"

Did you ever ask yourself why there is a play time marked on the side of every box of every board game?
The time a game lasts is the sum of every move plus thinking time and set-up. Where is it marked you can play turn based?

Basic education and respect for other people means when you are playing live you should take the time to think until there is no downtime in the game.

If you have problems in your group of AP and downtime due to players thinking too much then I know I would never join your group, people who create downtime or are lost in AP should try to change out of respect for the other players or just try video games.

So...live...there is not such a time limit where one is considered to be playing live or turn based.

Just respect for other man's life! I never had any problems with anyone about downtime or AP due to an understanding between players based on what I just wrote , respect!

Also, I am allowed to write that because knowing some BG designers (am myself a novice BG designer) they just said that to me
If you have to play a board game live, fast decision making is one, if not the most important , skill you need.
There are many BG's where there is little luck, all is based on math...doesn't it seem obvious that if you have all the time you can calculate math wise the best move? So where is the skill? Finally finding the move? Sort of treasure hunt in the turn based island?

I'm not sure of what prevents you from playing turn based if you really want to play against these people

Really? What prevents me? Oh my goshh...turn based of course

I'll rather play hearts solo than a turn based board game.

Next time I'll go to play soccer I'll ask my friends to kick the ball one time a day...hey...I don't have 2 hours to play a match...I also like to drink a coffee meanwhile....maybe it starts to rain and we have to continue anyway? No way, I'll play when I am sure my connection...ehhmmm...the weather is fine

You replied...when I'll find the time I'll open the thread real time vs turn based....it's getting too much off topic here