We can’t possibly compete on ELO against 2-player games.

[traddles27]

I don't agree with moving 2 or 3 player games to Training mode. First of all, what's boring for one, might be very entertaining for another. I played this very morning against one of the Top 10 players (one of the multi-accounts of pigu) and they beat me easily, of course, experience helped, but they were really good. While I didn't love it (especially since it wasn't neither Tac, nor Pro), but it wasn't boring and can understand how others could enjoy this type of play.

Why, because 1v1 is really competitive, you depend only on your and your opponent's moves, no 3rd, 4th ....xth parties involved. I play Sab2 only this way exactly for the reason mentioned, I must admit it helped me get to a very high ELO (but it wasn't my goal to reach no.1), and I also must admit I wasn't among the best Saboteur players overall.

So, I agree with Wreckage that the current system is a bit unfair to players that prefer larger games, and his suggestion in his second post might make the system a bit fairer, but i don't think the developers would make any change very soon.

[Tulivuori]

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, while our loses are 100% like theirs. 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%.

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.

That's not how it works (in 7 wonders at least). Instead, there is a fixed multiplier (depending on the player) count, which tells how big part of the Elo gain you get. The multiplier is the same regardless of whether you win, or whether you lose. So getting rid of the multiplier would make the Elo more volatile, but wouldn't increase it.

I took some examples of your games:

FInished 3rd
Game https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=140437010
Total: -6,58
Actual: -4,11
Ratio: 0,625

Finished 1st
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=140558326
20,28
12,68
0,625

Finished 2nd
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=140341796
12,74
7,96
0,625

So always, you get 62.5 % of the individual Elo gains, regardless of whether you win or lose.

[Bayman]

Hi, i'm not at my peak elo to complain about the situation atm but I was in top 20 not so long ago. I not a forum user either but when Wreckage put a light on that thread, I can just agree with his observation. A french tragedian said once "to conquest without risk, you triumph without glory", that summarize my thoughts about this problem. Peak elo should enlight those who win strategic games with 5 players, not duel with apprentices. Maybe just create a different ladder can be a convenient answer for everybody like it was said before...

[ItsEd]

Agreed.

I am also surprised Arena mode doesnt support tact/pro which seems to be the more popular variant for high ELO players. Im sure the team at BGA can see the stats on how much this game is played and frequency of these rules.

[SourisNeko]

Agree with this for folks who find the ELO and rankings motivating. Suggest following Mr. Popo's idea.

I was going to like or "upvote" Mr. Popo's post rather than just writing here, but I wasn't sure what the exclamation point or quotation mark buttons meant. Anyone know? Wonder if tooltips or other notes can get added into the UI at some point.

Have a good day!
Thanks!

[fafa-fr]

I was going to like or "upvote" Mr. Popo's post rather than just writing here, but I wasn't sure what the exclamation point or quotation mark buttons meant. Anyone know? Wonder if tooltips or other notes can get added into the UI at some point.

There are tooltips (though they might not work with all devices / browsers), these buttons are for reporting a message to moderators, and quoting when answering. There are no upvotes on forum posts.
But when someone has a suggestion, they can use the bugs / suggestions system (there are upvotes there), and advertise here for the suggestion.

[ufm]

I am also surprised Arena mode doesnt support tact/pro which seems to be the more popular variant for high ELO players. Im sure the team at BGA can see the stats on how much this game is played and frequency of these rules.

If you are interested in Arena mode options, create a poll to collect opinion from other players.
TM, RtfG, and other various games do this to determine options for next seasons.

[Wreckage]

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%.

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.

That's not how it works (in 7 wonders at least). Instead, there is a fixed multiplier (depending on the player) count, which tells how big part of the Elo gain you get. The multiplier is the same regardless of whether you win, or whether you lose. So getting rid of the multiplier would make the Elo more volatile, but wouldn't increase it.

You are correct. I was wrong, so I checked into it better. In 6 nimmt, usually the gain/loss is about 10 points against an EVEN opponent. Then it's adjusted by the probability of a win/loss according to the difference in your ELO. Then, that amount is reduced by a certain percentage according to the number of players in the game.

This is the percentage of ELO we get from our wins and losses against each opponent:
# players __ % of ELO allocated
2 players __ 100%
3 players __ 75%
4 players __ 67.2%
5 players __ 62.5%
6 players __ 50%
7 players __ 41.7%
8 players __ 35.7%
9 players __ 31.3%
10 players _ 27.8%

The problem of giving us 100% of what we earned against each opponent is, in a 10 player game we might gain or lose 100-200 ELO in a single game, making the system seem very erratic. But, IMO the winner should gain twice as much with 10 players as with 5 players.

Perhaps if we only reduced by 5% for each additional player, it would be closer to fair, and still not be too erratic.

[Pink lady]

Hello, I do agree too, even though ELO is not really my main goal.
I am sorry if this has already been mentionned (I did not read all the previous comments) but why not make 2 versions? Create 2 different games instead of suggesting that we should "force" the game under 3 players to be on a practice mode? It could be a kind of 6 nimmt duo? Like if they were 2 different games. Like 7 wonders and 7 wonders duel?

[Cheery Dog]

Winning a 10 player 6 nimmt game does not involve more skill than winning a 5 player game.

Yes it's harder based on odds, but it also contains a lot more luck than the lower player count.

And I'm pretty sure the basis of where elo base is equal to the recommended number of players. And it should go both ways from that number.