Suggestions to improve point allocation

[ChiefPointThief]

Ok stroom let’s play. We can do training if you’d like.

Recently I’ve become premium and have been playing with flams. In a very short period of time I have reached expert status. By the end of my premium month I will most likely be in the 700s if I continue to play with flams. Considering your assessment of my play I would have to say that my point about elo still stands.

[ChiefPointThief]

Speaking of clues I don’t understand why the majority of the field doesn’t understand to save 5s until the flams can be utilized properly. Example both blue 4s are tossed. Why play any fives until the blue 3 is played 1st? Often times we have room in our hands and several clues so I don’t understand the urgency to play the five. People will get angry at me for doing this.

Another thing I don’t understand is why I can’t number save before the chop? If you have 2 back to back cards that need to be saved I can’t wait until the chop to clue. Then you will toss the other card that needs to be saved. And often times when I do this it is clear the chop doesn’t need to be saved because I already had opportunities to clue it. Instead of playing the possible save why not just get rid of the chop?

[Stroom]

Sure, let's play sometime.

Still, elo is fine as it is. It is a rough estimation of a player skill and it does fluctuate very little as you play. It does not grow indefinitely and it does not drop a lot (maybe lost up to 200 out of 1000 some week with extremely bad luck/partners but I gained it right back too)

Speaking of clues I don’t understand why the majority of the field doesn’t understand to save 5s until the flams can be utilized properly. Example both blue 4s are tossed. Why play any fives until the blue 3 is played 1st? Often times we have room in our hands and several clues so I don’t understand the urgency to play the five. People will get angry at me for doing this.

Another thing I don’t understand is why I can’t number save before the chop? If you have 2 back to back cards that need to be saved I can’t wait until the chop to clue. Then you will toss the other card that needs to be saved. And often times when I do this it is clear the chop doesn’t need to be saved because I already had opportunities to clue it. Instead of playing the possible save why not just get rid of the chop?

Disclaimer: Only talking about 2-player games. These tactics might not work in 3+ player games.

Yes, it makes sense to save 5s until you can save a card with it. Sometimes even if you don't have anything to save but you could still lose something due to double discard later. Or just to see which card might be at the end of the deck that actually needs to be put back. People who get angry, usually don't understand how it would help out in the long run.

Number clue that marks a new card and does not mark chop and that could potentially be played, is usually considered a play clue. This helps keep the game moving. Otherwise you would have to waste 2 clues every time you need something to be played. In 2-player that would mean that you are constantly running out of clues and you can't really give useful clues when you need it.

You either have to think of saving cards sooner or you have to let a card go. Or under some circumstances you can give a color clue that marks one of the savable cards and a useless card on the left of it that makes the other player bomb... and then you use the other number card that saves the other card you needed to save.

[expomm]

Hi Vincent, thank you for posting this important topic.
I have a suggestion that will mitigate this abandon behaviour and at the same time make the learning curve for beginners more pleasant for all.

1. For Hanabi in special, allow/ create a space for practice games, unscored, with a practice XP scoring ( 100 points = 10 points of normal XP) so experts and beginners can practice and create a community where advance players can teach while playing.

2. Create a filter when creating a Hanabi game depending on player XP, such: apprentice, beginners, advance and experts.

[Blacktango]

1. For Hanabi in special, allow/ create a space for practice games, unscored, with a practice XP scoring ( 100 points = 10 points of normal XP) so experts and beginners can practice and create a community where advance players can teach while playing.

2. Create a filter when creating a Hanabi game depending on player XP, such: apprentice, beginners, advance and experts.

Hello, the filter on player's experience already exists

As for the practice mode, it seems to be the same as the already existing "friendly mode" that allows playing without ELO loss/win.

[Tuut Tuut tis Luut]

Number clue that marks a new card and does not mark chop and that could potentially be played, is usually considered a play clue. This helps keep the game moving. Otherwise you would have to waste 2 clues every time you need something to be played. In 2-player that would mean that you are constantly running out of clues and you can't really give useful clues when you need it

If it's already near chop though, often that card could have been clued to play much sooner. I think the problem here is players only playing by remembering "rules" and don't consider context.

If there was a possible reason the 2 wasn't clued in an earlier turn. You have all the available information to tell. If your partner hasn't had a lack of clues or was busy with other clues. No 1 was played the previous turn. And didn't discard any trash 2s or trash cards in the same color as a playable 2. It's unreasonable to think it's a play clue.

[yukihimeko]

I've been thinking about this point a lot lately. I love Hanabi, but I have walked away playing it on BGA because most people I met are too perfectionist and not wanting to lose points, and wants to start dictating how other people played the game to the point it is no longer fun.

My suggestion:
Let's not make players lose points by not attaining a perfect score, but instead, like Just One or Bandido on BGA, reward very little amount of points depending on how they scored on the firework display - such as 5 points for a perfect score, and less thereafter. That way, people would be more welcoming to newcomers and mistakes made instead of being the incredibly toxic mess that this game has made the perfectionist players.

[Stroom]

I've been thinking about this point a lot lately. I love Hanabi, but I have walked away playing it on BGA because most people I met are too perfectionist and not wanting to lose points, and wants to start dictating how other people played the game to the point it is no longer fun.

My suggestion:
Let's not make players lose points by not attaining a perfect score, but instead, like Just One or Bandido on BGA, reward very little amount of points depending on how they scored on the firework display - such as 5 points for a perfect score, and less thereafter. That way, people would be more welcoming to newcomers and mistakes made instead of being the incredibly toxic mess that this game has made the perfectionist players.

No. ELO is about measuring skill. Giving points and not taking them away is not a good indication of a good player. Only about how much you have played.

[Travis Hall]

No. ELO is about measuring skill.

Furthermore, it is a measure of skill with a purpose. It allows us to filter participation in our games so that we are playing with others of similar skill levels.

[Stroom]

For Hanabi, I would sometimes even want to filter by 800 or 900 too. Some 700s still keep playing at 500-600 level.