We need a "No second place mode" please

[Aguereguere]

We need a system, even if optional, that penalize all losers equally, the system we have now that give points depending on your place at the end of the game, make people give up on the first place, and sabotage the players that are paying the game, and it doesn't reflect the game, the games are better if everyone play trying to win, so please make a mode were only the winner rank up, and the rest rank down

I'm sorry for my bad English, not my native language

[RicardoRix]

I think the opposite is true. It's nice that people still play for 2nd place and don't just give up even when they can't win out-right. The ELO system as as a whole is also encouraging people to play to their best abilities which makes for first rate gaming experience IMO.

[Aguereguere]

In a 4 player game, If you have a play that give you 10% to get first place, and another that give you 30% of getting the second place, the elo system reward you for the latest option, but a lot of the time that play also seal the result of the game letting the first place secure his victory ruining the game for anyone who try to win the game, you don't have to win to have a fun game, but it's not fun wheel people don't try to win either.

Also people don't give their all with this system, they just go with the safest option to secure points, also in most games the points of everyone but the first place don't represent the match, the second best almost never get the second place.

I do feel like it should be optional, afterall we all don't give our best in the same situation than the rest.

But it's still so boring, like when a football team go for a tie or defeat to have a weakest opponent in the next round, is frustrating to lose against someone like this and it make the game so boring, even when you are winning if boring because noone try to take your first place, or you get a help you don't want, every time someone give up the first place and go for the second the game is so boring for the rest

[CB Droege]

That's a personal opinion about how people do and should play games, though, not a universal truth. I think in most natural boardgame situations (ones without ELO, like at a real table with friends) there will be some people willing to take the big risk that might win or lose, and some who would rather take the safe play that will likely get them second, people are all different, and I'd rather play in a system in which all play styles can find some reward.

I don't think the system needs to change in this regard. People SHOULD be rewarded in some way for second place, if ELO is important to them. And if, instead they see ELO as a measurement tool instead of a reward system (like me), it's still important that second place players be measured as 'more winning' than third place players in order to keep an accurate measurement of where everyone is.

Frankly, if I play in 10 4-player games with the same group, and I get second place nine times and first place once I SHOULD be ranked higher than the guy who got first place twice but fourth in every other game. I'm clearly the better player in that statistical scenario. Your proposed changes would make me ranked lower in that case, which doesn't track.

[Liallan]

That's a personal opinion about how people do and should play games, though, not a universal truth.

Amen! You can't decide how other people "should" play. I tend to play for 2nd if I don't think it's likely I'll win, but I do that when there's no ELO at stake, like IRL... so that's just how I play. I'm just not someone who tends to take the big risky move to try to win, if I don't think there's much chance of that. Besides, me getting ahead of the player in 1st doesn't necessary "take down" the player in 1st - depends whether I just help myself, or hurt them in the process.

This has also already been argued over about 3000 times.

[Aguereguere]

No one in real play for the second place, not like they do here atleast, no one cares, or they try to get win, or they try to get the more fun (that translate in stupid random plays), it impress me your answers, because implicit o explicit the no second place rule is always present in real life, and playing here I understand why, is so fucking annoying, to have someone surrender, and give the first place to the player with more points at the moment, because when someone doit it became so difficult to take the first play, a lot of time impossible it gives you 2 options, or you too play for the second place, or bet to extremely risky moves for the first, and you guys say in real life people plays safe for the best place they can get, but only noobs do that, and is true in some game the second place is the second best, and that in other is not that big deal, but that's why I say it should be optional, well it that doesn't matter anymore, not like it gonna happen with so much negative but at least I made the suggestion

[RicardoRix]

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about how people are thinking and playing, however I think I understand the point you are making.

In real life nobody is keeping details of rank for each game (probably) and on BGA they do, so provides a slightly different game play experience. But who's to say BGA are trying to exactly recreate the board game playing experience you have at home? Having an option as you suggest does however allow both types of experience so with that I understand. So the reason people might still play for 2nd more so than the win is because of ELO ratings. So there you have your option already -Play with ELO off. Bingo!!

[Romain672]

There is another problem.
Imagine you are third.
If you try the first place, you have 0% chance to finish first, and 10% second.
And if you try the second place, you have 0% chance to finish first, and 30% second.

What should you do? And if only the first player get the elo, why would you try to finish second since it change nothing, so you can do whatever you want since it change nothing for you.

You can't find a good solution...