Schtitn wrote: ↑07 June 2019, 07:42
I understand how it can be frustrating to be the target to bit in a game.
But i look for it !
Isn't it what Elo and range is about ? Becoming a strong player, show it to the world so everybody want a win against you.
If you are very high in elo in a game, you have to assume your status!
Ok that changes gameplay of most games but it is the interest : some differences regarding who you play with.
Even a good AI would adapt from your gameplay, that's part of the fun.
Ok in some multi player or cooperation game the game can lose interest because you know that there no way to avoid losing.
And it can be hard to find enough players with close elo.
But for me, i just don't want to play with players without knowing their level. And in my opinion it is unfair to play against newbies without showing your hard experience.
I'm not against this option (more options = more freedom!) but i fear that this will divise players in 2 groups so less tables available, more hard to find opponents and maybe hard frustration for beginners
In addition Elo take part in the communication during a game. you don't hear messages the same way regarding the level of who is speaking...
I don't understand the benefit of this option if you maintain filter by level. Nobody knows that one players is strongest than the others ? ok but others have elo to lose if they are targeting a player. I thought the interest of the option was to play against players with big difference of elo without being targeting with no risk by low elo players. With filter, that matter disappears.
As a conclusion : this option means that level of ALL players are hided in the site so that's a big change !
When I play games, my number one goal is to get first place. Not fourth. Not second. First. It's only when it is impossible for me to get first place that I'll play for second, third, etc. In games like Love Letter, it's very easy to go from fifth to first (I've seen it happen many, many times), so there's no reason to play for anything other than first in that game.
In the game I mentioned in my original post, there was one player that could have easily gotten first place, but he cared more about ensuring that he beat me than he did about winning first place. Many of his moves were highly questionable, and he practically handed the game to the winner on a silver platter. This is why many high ranked players are hesitant to play 3+ player games with lower ranked players.
Another example of this: I played a recent 5 player Colt Express game where the player with the highest ELO at the table (not me) was shot 6 times during the first round, which is very hard to recover from. The other players had a chance to target other people but decided not to.
In an anonymous game, players would be forced to make moves based on the current game, not on past information. A skilled player would be able to discern who knows what they're doing and who doesn't based on moves made in the current game, anyway.
In your other comment, you said that you mostly play 2 player games. I'm the opposite and am drawn to 4+ player games, so I see this phenomenon a lot and think anonymity would make these games more fair.
you would anyway know - one player there is 300, one 100 and one 1.