Travis Hall wrote: ↑04 January 2024, 06:15
I’m not sure that that change actually affects Hanabi, due to the fact that in Hanabi we aren’t winning our ELO points from another player (but instead from an imaginary “bot”, which never actually has its rating reduced).
Interesting. Would be curious to see what developers say, but I'm unsure how to find out.
jgpaladin wrote: ↑10 January 2024, 01:14
Whatevs. My experience is my experience. And I kind of tire of you playing both sides of this fence with me, given how often you express shock that I haven't RT'd some players that I accidentally wind up suffering with.
Not trying to negate your experience, only stating what the contributing factors are. Being shocked that you haven't RTed someone doesn't mean that I think you should RT more, or that it would create a better experience. Only surprise at your selection criteria. RTing P********6 (who I would personally rank as one of the top tier 5p hanabi players on BGA) after 1 or 2 bad games, but not RTing another individual who consistently plays poorly and is unwilling to learn, is what my surprise was about. Our given and received RTs create our own selection bias.
jgpaladin wrote: ↑10 January 2024, 01:14
I don't see the point of this. I am saying that the game feels worse to me now than it did a few months ago. For whatever reason. Yes, we are better players than we were a year ago when we were newly masters-level. Are my expectations for 700 elo players too high? Perhaps. You can't fault me for that any more though because the admins decided to hide the exact elo so all I get to see is "master" which has become kind of meaningless.
"The point" is that is another contributing factor to selection bias. Yes, I do think your expectations for 700 elo players are too high, especially when I've re-watched how we played at 700 and even 800 elo. Yes, you will feel there are more mistakes made by others because you're making less mistakes comparatively. Of course, those who routinely used to abandon games where people made mistakes will also feel there are more mistakes now, but that has not been my experience. I am not inferring you did this, but *am* stating someone you commonly play with occasionally did, thereby does effect some percentage of your games.
I agree the new hidden elo limits part of how some players understand or appropriately evaluate another player. But any new player I don't recognize, I personally treat as 700 elo or as a falsely elevated 1000 elo from 2p games. The elo doesn't give me more information, their game history does.
jgpaladin wrote: ↑10 January 2024, 01:14
I'm waiting for your suggestion. Do I RT everyone I think isn't good enough or not? How am I supposed to find good games?
Lower expectations of new players or ones you're unfamiliar with. Willingness to teach. Not everyone has a hanabi friend to discuss strategy with and not everyone's chosen person to discuss with is going to accurately teach them. You got really lucky you had a good teacher very early on (unsolicited shoutout to our mutual friend). You're also gifted with above average intelligence and extensive general board gaming experience. Not everyone will plateau at the same skill level, or we would all be CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and Nobel Prize winners. But whether you want to teach or not, you can't expect better games without *someone* out there willing to teach.
jgpaladin wrote: ↑10 January 2024, 01:14
I'd also point out that most players who achieve master level think they're amazing at this game and have no interest in learning.
Oh, and then there are the players who refuse to discuss during the game because they think it's "cheating" because all they seem to think about is this current game's score instead of learning. And they never seem to stick around after to discuss, either. So they also will never get better.
100% agree and those are the players I RT. I do give some grace to non-English speaking players because their inability to understand me does not equate to a lack of willingness to learn. But not at all saying you have to give that same leniency.
jgpaladin wrote: ↑10 January 2024, 01:14
Still waiting for your actual suggestion. I don't mind teaching people who are willing to learn, but they are few and far between. Also, I don't actually play Hanabi just so I can teach. I kind of want to enjoy the actual game myself, too.
I agree that you do teach, and well. But not everyone is going to be open to learning when met with berating rudeness, and it's a little silly to expect them to be. They don't know you are any better of a player or teacher than the next rude player, they just know they don't want to be spoken to that way.
We all had to learn from somewhere. Even you and *** didn't understand layered after several games because no one was effectively explaining why it worked initially. Even the last time I checked the "greatest active hanabi players" group, their description of layered was glaringly incomplete, and did not even begin to touch on the why.
So for the games I don't expect a player to know more advanced conventions, I tailor my expectations and, in consequence, my clues. Many players will clue a layer no matter what. Sure, go for it. But don't get upset if the new player didn't understand it, even if they thought they could. Part of the game is playing the players.
jgpaladin wrote: ↑10 January 2024, 01:14
Must be nice to not pay for the site and be able to selectively join games. I, otoh, start 99% of my games and I can't possibly kick out the n00bs who join all the time, ignoring my stated request that they are actually experienced enough to do so.
You can't possibly be telling me your game options as a paying premium player are more extensive than mine, can you??
but yes, my table selectivity is another option to try to achieve better games. I avoid tables with 2 or more wild cards unless I know I'm willing to teach that day.
And, because I know you'll disagree with my above suggestions for lower expectations or more teaching for better games, my last proposed solution: We should play together, again
Lots to catch up on, on and off the site, but I couldn't resist replying on this forum, when you so blatantly called me out, twice, on what you were "still waiting" to hear.
Malo77 wrote: ↑10 January 2024, 08:44
Or maybee as players we can create some player groups to help select team mates in a given elo range:
...
- hanabi league 500-599
- hanabi league 600-699
- hanabi league 700-799
- hanabi league 800-899
- hanabi league 900-999
...
(other elo groups welcome too )
and post messages in them when we want to start a game with a given elo level only
I'm less interested in hanabi groups to join in such limited elo ranges as I think my current elo would not give me many options for a 5p table, but do agree this breakdown per elo score *and above* much like the table settings for reputation currently exists, would work. Eg. >700, >800, >900, >1000, rather than BGA's arbitrarily assigned expert vs master (and masters encompassing far too broad a range).
I do look up players and tend not to join games with players I don't recognize who have only 2-3p games or multiple bomb-out 5p games in their recent history. On non-work days when I am more patient and do join these tables, I try to give some grace to players I don't recognize and do extensive post-game discussions. We're all continually evolving our game play and you'll never get the good players you seek if new players can't learn, after all. Of course, I still RT those who are rude, petulant, and/or unwilling to learn.
but yes, my table selectivity is another option to try to achieve better games. I avoid tables with 2 or more wild cards unless I know I'm willing to teach that day.
Lots to catch up on, on and off the site, but I couldn't resist replying on this forum, when you so blatantly called me out, twice, on what you were "still waiting" to hear.