Board Game Arena

I totally agree, but only for games like this. Hearts has always meant to be a attack the leader type of game, while other games aren't. I've played a lot of hearts and it has become increasingly apparent that players are playing to avoid 4th. There have even been times when you can basically call the game after two or three hands because second and third are just trying to get 4th out of the game and the leader doesn't have to do anything.

Also, because of the nature of the game, it's really one winner and three losers, so the ELO should reflect this. I would also suggest the ELO is awarded on the points difference average;
eg;
Leader wins with 42 points, second has 34, third 11 and fourth -2 - 42-34=8, 42-11=31, 42--2=44, 8+11+44=63, 63/3=21 - ELO for 2nd, 3rd & 4th would be based on a 21 point difference.
or Leader wins with 14, second has 6, third 0 and fourth -1, 14-6=8, 14-0=14, 14--1=15, 8+14+15=37, 37/3=12.33 - ELO for 2nd, 3rd & 4th would be based on a 12.33 point difference.
This would mean that players are more likely not to dump on last place as if they didn't win they might be doing themselves a mis-service.

Not sure how it could be implemented, but at the moment, Hearts is such a nasty place to play.

How is this any different than order of finish in Agricola, Ticket to Ride, Azul, or whatever? Change to winner take all and it's just a different set of behaviors for players to whine about. And I would expect more ferocity in the whining because the stakes (such as they are) would be higher, and charges of kingmaking much more likely. Currently one can have a big gap between 2nd and 3rd place, but instead of players complaining about which of the two leaders should be targeted (except for the relatively weak players who always seem to be the loudest whiners, no matter the situation), the players each have at least one other player to focus on finishing ahead of.

To be clear, this will never be implemented as addressed here: https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31027

I have seen 2nd and 3rd place finishers get more points than the winner of the game. I don't think this should ever happen no matter what your rating is. Hearts has one of the worst scoring systems I have ever seen. And it gets worse the higher rating you have. After playing many games I think it's almost better to keep a lower rating than trying to build up your rating. No real incentive ti having a high rating in this game.

Sparky8016 wrote: ↑26 July 2023, 22:38 I have seen 2nd and 3rd place finishers get more points than the winner of the game. I don't think this should ever happen no matter what your rating is. Hearts has one of the worst scoring systems I have ever seen.

https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=faq_account_elo

Sparky8016 wrote: ↑26 July 2023, 22:38 And it gets worse the higher rating you have. After playing many games I think it's almost better to keep a lower rating than trying to build up your rating. No real incentive ti having a high rating in this game.

What is the point? Players with higher rating are expected to beat lower rated players more frequently.
If they cannot do so their rating should be adjusted accordingly. That's the whole purpose of ELO.

This is spot on.

First should get points, 2 - 4 should lose equal points. This is the only site I've ever been on where players try to finish second or third.

TheGrubes wrote: ↑30 April 2024, 04:22This is the only site I've ever been on where players try to finish second or third.

Here is some examples:
- autobattlers (Hearthstone battleground, tft...)
- olympics games (and yeah it got some consequences like on the strategc part of the Pole vault where you sometimes need to choose between consolidate your second place or going for first)(or just most races btw)
- most cashprices. The 'winner takes all' is less commun than something else
- ...

And I'm sure I'm missing a lot of them.

And even in football. If you want for the first team to win all, that will makes most players to 'work for nothing' and a few to win way too much. Instead, some countries can be intensivise to play with their best player in 8th of final because they don't expect to goes much further. While if their only goal is to win, they should play with worst player, hope to get a win, and keep their best player fresh.
It's way more complicated than that (so it doesn't seem a good example), but the idea stay there.

Besides, elo is not a prize or an award, it's a measure of skill. You should discuss whether finishing 2nd takes more skill or not than finishing 4th.