Would anyone else like to see a separate ranking based on how many players in each game someone played?

[NömadiçJay]

So I have noticed a few of the top players in certain games will only play a game if they have the "right" amount of players and some who won't play if it is too few or too many. It might seem petty, but I feel, especially on certain games, that you can find a way to "dominate" other players if you know how to utilize that "certain" number of players in a game. As in 2 player Libertalia or Legendary Inventors being extremely different games than with a greater number of players.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying eliminate the "top players" ranks or anything, but I would love to be able to see a breakdown of how many games each player has participated in with 1 or 2 or multiple other players. It kinda bothers me when I see someone extremely high ranked unwilling to play a game because it has X amount of players. This way we could at least know if they've achieved their rank through all different amounts of players or only played in certain game styles.

Does that make sense? I'm terrible at writing and I'm not sure I expressed myself clearly.

[RobertBr]

No, I think that is a bad idea. Generally top players will play two player because Elo is not able to account for the amount of control a player has over their results.

Personally I've thought it would be kind of cool to have an additional stat that recorded your highest ever proportional rank X out of Y ranked players.

[ollyfish2002]

I completly agree this idea.
For the games I play like Hanabi and Tokaido, there is so much differences between 2 players, 3 players or more, that the rules are even different.
+1

[Eragem]

I think it's a good idea only for high elo, implement that for normal elo will just be annoying for common people.

[Liallan]

Common people? Nice to know those of us who aren't top players are just commoners.

I actually have no need to see separate rankings for player counts. Sure, some of the top players may have gotten there by only playing certain player counts. But can't we all do that? I do. I don't have enough games here to really judge much here, but I do have enough elsewhere. People have what they prefer as a player count, at least on some games. I suspect we all do that. I know one game over on Yucata which I'm fairly good at, I only play 2 player and wouldn't know how to act with 3-4 players. So yeah, I got my skill level playing 2 player. So it "bothers you" that I refuse to do 3-4 player? It "bothers you" that 2P is how I enjoy that game? Would you be less bothered if I played a way that isn't any fun for me? Well, I'd be quite bothered to play in a way I don't enjoy, and sorry, but I don't care how you feel about it.

I don't begrudge anyone if they have a "sweet spot" in a certain number of players, and I really don't care. I will grant you that I think a really truly good player of a given game should be able to adjust to different player counts, but I also don't take people's ELOs quite that seriously. I mean, I like having a ranking system and I pay attention to it, but I just don't take it quite that seriously, not to mention it's not super accurate - it's a rough guide. And I'm well aware that a different player count or a certain variant or whatever might totally throw them off.

If I'm really that interested in what their "usual" player count is, I can look at their games without too much trouble.

[Ankeszu]

Separate ranking? I don't think it's needed, reasons mentioned by Liallan.

Also, at least in Hanabi, number of players in the game affects how elo is scored - it require different amount of games (with similar coplayers) to reach the same elo with different number of players, even if average elo at the table is exactly the same (e.g. those who play only 3p games due to statistics wouldn't be able to reach 900 and quite likely even 800 would be pretty hard, while for 2p players it's just a matter of time...) - so it would be quite hard to comparise those players by elo, anyway.


But - just for my own curiosity and maybe other players too - I would like the option to filter tables someone played not only by the game but by the number of players too. Or at least have the quantity of games with each players count next to the number of game tables found. The number of games played in certain configuration, in relation to number of all played games, is interesting but rather for my own assessment than accurate judgement of skills. (Generally ELO is poorly fitting multiplayer games, with so much more variables in other players behaviour or even order.)