Thanks for the support.
It was not my intention to say someone is doing something wrong. I am not trying to report a player. I only used a player’s name to make my point. If people enjoy the game 1 vs 1, they should be able to do it. I just want a somewhat even playing field.
My point is:
If we were playing apprentices our ceiling would be in the 200s ELO. This is the very reason we have so many ‘’good and above’’ or ‘’strong and above’’ tables. Generally, the normal expert player is trying to find the toughest opponents possible. We are hoping to find those rare all-expert tables so that if we win against them 10 games in a row, we can reach our ceiling of 600-650 ELO.
The players playing 1 vs 1 are not doing this, there is no need to ever play someone in the top 500 or top 5000 ranking. Their ELO ceiling is actually in the 1100s compared to ours in the 600s.
What’s happening is we receive less ELO for each additional opponent in the game. Example: if we win a 6-player game we receive 100%, 80%, 60%, 40% and 20% of what we would gain if we played each of them 1 vs 1. The ELO you receive for a victory over 5 opponents is only 60% of what 1 vs 1 players are getting against the same 5 opponents. The difference between getting 1st or 2nd is huge. If you beat that last player, you get 20% of the ELO you should receive, but if he beats you, you lose 100%.
The ''minimum player advantage'' is a problem across the site and the reason 1 vs 1 players dominate most games. It’s an even bigger advantage in games that play best with 7-12 players.
The percentages I gave are not accurate. I looked for the actual equation and didn’t find it. This equation varies for each game on the site but it’s generally how it works I believe. Please don’t flame me if it’s wrong.
My SUGGESTION is that ELO gain is not reduced against each additional opponent. Our scores would shoot up much higher at first, but then find the balance, and the system would be fair across all player counts.
