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

[Wreckage]

Second, We talk about The Comparing Between <2 players set> And <5 players set>.
I do not think it is unfair for the players in <5 players set>.Because the ELO calculation system in a <5 players set game> is actually almost same with a <2 players set game>.If you are a participant in a <5 players set game>, at the sight of system , you are playing 4 independent games with 4 players at the same time.

This is not true. The ELO calculation is not almost the same, not even close.
If a player wins playing 2 player games against 4 opponents with ELO equal to his own, he will gain about 40 ELO.
If a player wins playing a 5 player game against 4 opponents with ELO equal to his own he will gain about 25 ELO.

If they both play 100 opponents and beat 50 of them, they will be tied, because the losses effect the 2 player more, just like the wins do, so this sounds fair. But, if they both beat 51 opponents and lose to only 49, the player playing 2 player will be 30 ELO ahead of the other player. He will be another 30 ELO ahead for each additional percent they are above 50%. So if they both beat 3/4 of their opponents, you can see that one will be hundreds of ELO ahead of the other...no contest.

[Tulivuori]

You can't win 75 % of the games against equal Elo. Eventually you rise above them, and you start gaining less and losing more. That's the point in Elo system. If you win 75 % of your opponents, the Elo you can reach is the same, regardless of the K-factor.

[Fiora_Laurent]

But, if they both beat 51 opponents and lose to only 49, the player playing 2 player will be 30 ELO ahead of the other player. He will be another 30 ELO ahead for each additional percent they are above 50%. So if they both beat 3/4 of their opponents, you can see that one will be hundreds of ELO ahead of the other...no contest.

Your theory is correct but temporarily and not common, it must be established at 2 preconditions:

• You must have a strong skill above almost all the other players in this game.It means you can forever keep＞50% win ratio against any oppenents including the players whose ELO is equal to you.

• You just started playing this game for not many times, so your current ELO is not extremely high. It means at least the players whose ELO is equal to you are exist, then you have possibility to play with them. Obviously, this precondition will be temporarily. Base on the precondition #1, it will be invalid sooner or later.

So, the conclusion is:
It is impossible to keep >50% win ratio against some other players whose ELO is equal to you for a long time. If you ——

• Keep trying play with them.

• Only play with them.

• They are exist.

• They keep accepting to play with you.

Your win ratio will finally tend to 50% and your ELO will keep in a stable zone. Because the ELO system is scientific.

Then another question:
If <Chadmild> and <Wreckage> both only play with rookies ——

• <Chadmild> plays <2 players set> and <Wreckage> plays <5 players set>.

• The ELO and the K factors of you two are currently equal.

• Your skill levels are absolutely equal.

Who can reach the higher ELO than another? Theoretically, the highest ELO you can reach will be the same. Because ——

• Although you never play with any valuable oppenents, your ELO will still touch the ceiling. For example, if <Chadmild>'s ELO is 1200 and he can only earn 0.05 ELO from winning a rookie, how can he keep increasing his ELO? Impossible!

• If you set a <not very high target> ,for example ELO 600, maybe one guy can reach target easier than another. It depends on whether <Wreckage> is lucky enough to make a long win streak at the beginning. But If the target is accuartely fits your real ability, it means you at least need plenty of wins to reach it, both of you will pay almost the same effort and time.

But in reality, nobody knows his limit of ELO.
For example, we assmue both of you can at most reach 1200 ELO.Then one of the following two situations will happen:

• <Chadmild> increases his ELO very slow but relatively stable and now he has 700 ELO. <Wreckage> does not have a good luck(long win streak) for a long time, so he's ELO is always wandering at 550~650. <Wreckage> attempts to surpass <Chadmild> for many times but fails, he feels unfair, although he knows that <good luck> is rare ,<normal luck> is common , but he is still unhappy —— God! why does the good luck still not come?

• <Chadmild> increases his ELO very slow but relatively stable and now he has 700 ELO and very happy. Suddenly, <Wreckage> just makes a long win streak, so he's ELO is 800 now. <Chadmild> feels unfair, although he knows that <good luck> is rare but is not nonexist and <Wreckage> can reach ELO 800 not only depends on luck but also ability , but he is still unhappy —— God! why you give good luck to <Wreckage> at this time?

Why <Chadmild / Wreckage>'s ELO is currently higher than mine? Does it means that he has a higher skill than me? No! I'm not convinced!

• <Chadmild> thinks the system is unfair, why can it allows a guy surpass me only by good luck?

• <Wreckage> thinks the system is unfair, why can it allows a guy surpass me only by spending time but taking no risk?

Theoretically, none of you need to be unhappy , because both of you are far from the limit 1200 now. But in reality, maybe one of you will be unhappy.

[Wreckage]

This is a silly discussion. Let's try to make it plain.

Let's say your team is in a basketball league where each basket is worth 2 points.
I'm in another basketball league where each basket is worth 20 points.
It's fair because each basket scored against your team is only 2 points, and each scored against mine is worst 20 against my team.

Now, is it fair to compare the champions of the two leagues by which of them outscored their opponents by the most points this season?
In 6 nimmt, 5p player games gain 62.5% as much ELO for victories as 2p games. They also only lose as 62.5% for their losses.

Comparing the champions by points when baskets are worth more in one league than another is unfair.

[Tulivuori]

Your analogy doesn't work. In Elo scoring, the value of a "basket" change as soon as you have played one game.

Like has been said, having 75 % win rate against equal Elo is not possible. If it was, you would have no cap on how high your Elo would get.

[Wreckage]

Lol, assume they both play the same level of opponent....any level you choose. If they both have victories 75% of the time, the 2p guy will be hundreds ahead of the 5p guy all the way...he's getting 37.5% more ELO for each victory all the way.

[Tulivuori]

Lol, assume they both play the same level of opponent....any level you choose. If they both have victories 75% of the time, the 2p guy will be hundreds ahead of the 5p guy all the way...he's getting 37.5% more ELO for each victory all the way.

No, he won't. I can run a simulation if you want.

[Fiora_Laurent]

Lol, assume they both play the same level of opponent....any level you choose. If they both have victories 75% of the time, the 2p guy will be hundreds ahead of the 5p guy all the way...he's getting 37.5% more ELO for each victory all the way.

There are 2 preconditions:

• One player indeed can keep a very high win ratio if he only plays with rookies.

• Nobody can keep his win ratio in 100% even if he only plays with rookies.

Based on these 2 preconditions, here is the conclusion:
Even if he can keep his win ratio extramely high in the competitions against rookies, such as 99.99%, his ELO still can not forever increase.
Because the rate of increase per win will becomes slower and slower, finally can not offset the 0.01% risk of loss.
So, no matter you play 2p or 5p set, you will finally touch your ELO ceiling sooner or later.
If we only compare their final ELO in a quite long process, and ignore which one increases faster, it is fair.

Another question:
Maybe in your opinion , 2p will always increase ELO faster than 5p? It is also wrong.
Although if we seperate a 5p game into 4 independent games and each single games, we can only gain 62.5%(for each single game) as much ELO for victories as 2p games. But don't forget:
These "4 independent games" are in progress at the same time and don't spend you 4 times brainpower.
62.5% × 4 = 250% ＞ 100%
If the randomness is equal in 2p and 5p, on the contrary, 5p must be faster. 2p should say "no fair" instead of 5p.
For example:

• I am a retailer and you are a wholesaler.

• We both sell the same mineral water.

• We spend equal effort then both made 100 deals every day.

• We both need to pay 25% tax for our profit.

• I earn $1.00 profit for each bottle of water, and I sell 1 bottle per deal.

• You earn only $0.10 profit for each bottle of water, but you sell 100 bottles per deal.

You and me, Who earn money faster?

• 1 × 1 × 100 × 75% = 75

• 0.1 × 100 × 100 × 75% = 750

Sure I know this example does not fit the reality in <6 nimmt!>, because at least in my opinion: the randomness of 5p is quite higher than 2p.
So 2 conditions——

• good news: 62.5% × 4 = 250% ＞ 100%, this condition makes 5p increase ELO faster.

• bad news: higher randomness, this condition makes 5p increase ELO slower.

1 good news versus 1 bad news, maintain balance, very fair.
If you still think that the influence of the bad news is bigger than the influence of the good news, and makes it's unfair to 5p. For example you think BGA should change the coefficient 62.5% into 80%.

• I have nothing more to refute, it is the business of BGA. Why not adapt to the environment instead of trying to change it?

• I don't care if BGA makes such a change even if 62.5% → 200%, because finally your ELO will stable in the same zone which fits your ability.

The coefficient, no matter 62.5% or 80% or 200%, can only impact the speed of variation of ELO, but can not impact the highest ELO level you can reach.

[Fiora_Laurent]

i think to be honest a game of nimmt for 2 players? It might be boring as hell.. and very luck dependent instead of strategy.. but you are right on this point

The fact is:

• It is thought very boring for maybe majority people. But some people including me think it is interesting.

• very luck dependent? Totally wrong. If your have a high level in this game, you will make an opposite conclusion.

I can not comprehend, why there is a person , who only played 24 <multiple players set> games in <6 nimmt!> and won 0 of 24,
https://boardgamearena.com/gamestats?pl ... me_id=1008
dares to make a hasty conclusion:
<multiple players set> has more strategy and less luck than <2 players set>.
????

Please at least do something to prove your conclusion:

• First, use your strategy to win several <multiple players set> games. Otherwise, how do you know that the winners of those 24 games depend on much more strategy than luck?

• Second, play several <2 players set> games no matter win or lose, just in order to feel the "strategyless" of it. For example, although you are a rookie, but you still have a not small chance to beat a high ELO player.

And I am very happy to cooperate with you to prove the second point if you want. Then let you know what is the feeling of "Desperation".

[Fiora_Laurent]

That's the only fair way to compare the apples and oranges of 1v1 vs multiplayer. A player who outright wins 4 4p games has done the equivalent feat as a player who has won 12 1v1 games.

If we only consider about the difficulty, it is fair, we both beat 12 opponents.
But if we also consider about <time and effort>, maybe it is not fair.

• we must spend more time for 12 1v1 games than 4 4p games.

• the brainpower you pay for every single games, no matter 4p or 1v1, is almost the same.

Anyway, as a 1v1 player, even if BGA accept your suggestion and change the rule, I still don't care, because:

• Athough it makes them earn more ELO when they won, it also makes them lose more ELO than before when they loss.

• If they played enough games, the ELO will still at the same position as before , which fit to their ability.

• In a long process, the change of the rule can help nobody to make his ELO higher than before.

The only influence for me is:
If one strong player created a new account with high K-factor, make a long win streak with some good luck, reach to a high ELO then stop continue playing. For example 800 ELO.
At the meantime if I am still on the way to increase my ELO, for example my ELO is currently 600.Then maybe I will be unhappy for a long time until my ELO surpass 800.
But the precondition is, my game skill is really higher than him, that means I can also reach ELO 800 sooner or later. Or ELO 800 does not fit his ability, his ELO will get down sooner or later.
If my game skill is in fact lower than him, why should I care of his ELO? 200 more or 1000 more than me, no difference for me.

After all, any rules can only change the speed to touch the ceiling, but can not change the maximum height you can touch with your ability. That is my opinion.