Board Game Arena

This is not a high priority item, of course, but I think it would be more informative and cool if ELO's were not based entirely on the game played, but on different subsets of the game played.

Let me explain...

If you've ever played Puerto Rico with different numbers of starting players, for example, you're quite aware that it's each a drastically different game with 3, 4, or 5 players. I notice that the highest ELO ranks among Puerto Rico players are those who stick almost exclusively to 3 player. The tragedy to that, of course, is that 3 player is not even the recommended number of players! Now, I understand the pride in wanting to maintain a high ELO ranking, but that makes for a reluctance to play any other configurations, including the configuration where the game shines the brightest (i.e. 4 player).

I stick almost entirely to 4 player Puerto Rico... it's the configuration that allows for the most variation in play and the most critical decision making... it's not as static in strategy and execution as 3 player, in my view. The game is incredibly balanced and varied; sometimes 30 points can win and sometimes it takes 70... it's that good with 4 player.

So I see who I consider the best Puerto Rico players, Benjo5 and Itennenh, for example, who are not near the top in ELO ranking, and that's a shame.

Here's what I propose...

Instead of Puerto Rico : ELO, how about something like Puerto Rico(3): ELO, Puerto Rico(4): ELO, and Puerto Rico(5) ELO, so that we might see how proficient players have demonstrated themselves under each configuration? This idea of subsets would not only apply to Puerto Rico, but to all other games, as well. I have played other games on BGA where strategies differ depending on the number of players.

Thanks for reading, and, as always, Board Game Arena is the best site on the entire internet! Many thanks for your hard work.