Board Game Arena

I had no idea this was happening! or who #1 was. But I totally agree it's an unfair way of giving out the points.
2 player games are incredibly boring and pointless anyway, I feel like the only reason someone would go through that slow torture is to get more ELO or because of fear of losing it. I think BGA has to change something there quickly, thanks for pointing out the issue!

I fully agree with everything Wreckage said. ELO abuse is a definite problem and not exclusive to 6 Nimmt!. The idea of forcing it to be in training mode is intriguing and what they did to allow 1-player Bandido games.
My one rebuttal is that I don't know if it's important enough of a problem to be dealt with anytime soon.

I had no idea people played 1 VS 1 on nimmt6, that must be the most boring and long game of all times.
I personally don't mind so much about elo, my elo comes and goes, but if this is important for some people, I respect that and think it should be fixed. But,,, how can it be fixed?

Hey y'all,

Haven't been playing 6nimmt for a while since I am very busy this month, but yep, I have seen tables with two players and the host is usually an expert or above challenging anyone even below them. I agree that this shouldn't be happening if highest-ranking players only care for their ELO.

In my opinion, I like the great challenge to face any of these players in 5-player tables and it is a congratulation to players, especially those with lower ELO rankings, who can defeat them from time to time.

You are right totally, Wreckage.

I would like to see Chadmild and others like him to play against 4 players over 500-600 ELO in a 5players TacPro.

i agree with this post. The game is so different with 2 players or 5 players.

And please, remove the option to join multiple tables before start a game.

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.

Seperating ELO by the number of the player is the ideal solution.
However it is practically impossible to assign individual ratings by player number, considering all these games in BGA...

Totally agree.

The ELO should be defined and mostly gained from the games with the recommended number of players. i.e. for 6nimmt that would be 5 players, for Saboteur 7 players and so on.

Anything outside that number/interval should be adjusted to a lower ELO gain/loss.

Wreckage wrote: ↑19 January 2021, 09:55 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.

The more players you have, the less likely it is that the victory comes only from the talent of the winner.
There is the king making principle where a player considering they might be losing the game could help someone of their choice winning.
It is not present in all games of course, ie game like Welcome to. But it would mean more tuning per game, no one will never be happy with the tunings...