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

[Wreckage]

In 6 Nimmt,
If a player plays 2-player games and has wins of 90% they can stay about 600 ELO above their average opponent.
If a player plays 5-player games and has wins of 90% they can stay about 100 ELO above their average opponent.

In 6 nimmt, Chadmild is ranked #1. He only plays 2-player games. I have nothing against Chadmild, he must be the best 1 vs 1 player on the site.
I usually play 5-player games. We will never meet in a game. But the two different ELO equations gives him a 500 ELO advantage over me.

Let us compare:
Chadmil
91% wins …this keeps him at an average of about 710 ELO
Average opponent = 115 ELO (from Sept 1, last 50 games)
Lowest opponents = 20% of his opponents have only 1 ELO
Highest opponents 429, 348, and 4 players in the 200s, the other 44 are apprentices or average.

Wreckage
100% wins…this keeps him at an average of about 570 ELO
Average opponent = 460 ELO (against the same number of opponents)
Lowest opponents = 20% in the 300s , none lower
Highest opponents = 30% are experts, 70% are above Chadmild’s highest opponent, 94% are above his second highest opponent.

Looking back further into our histories is more of the same.

This is not only about me. I think every player that typically plays with 5 or more players knows this is broken.
I understand that the allocation of ELO for winning in multiplayer is reduced for each additional player, but this really isn’t even close to fair.

It’s interesting to note that the players ranked highest of most games on the site play with the minimum # of players allowed. This is not because of better statistics, just better ELO for the same statistics.

Could we please make this more fair?

[wolfwood3650]

I agree with Wreckage, more fair in 5 player games please.

[KatyaM]

Yeah, I agree.

It feels like the weight assigned to the win of the 2-player game is too high compared to a game with >=5 players, must be a simple recalibration of 1 factor.

I'd say it's also a problem for other games, where 1:1 is not a dominant variant (Kingdomino, for instance).

[mapleleafbc]

I tend to agree with this. If you are someone who cares about ELO and ranking, it is hard to compete with others that are essentially playing a different version of the game. If there is a solution, i would support its implementation.

Maple

[Nico007]

I'm totally agree. The essence of the game is 5 or 6-players in each table.
Most of the 'best players' by Elo have taken advantage of the system which is completely unfair for those players who always have huge wins but still on the bottom rank

[MrPopo]

I was actually checking earlier today, and in top 10 nimmt players by elo, 7 are only playing 1v1, two have less than 100 games (skewered elo gains) and one plays mostly 5 player games.

I do agree that games with 3 players or less should fall into a different category. I don't want to assume that all these 1v1 players are farming for elo, but considering that the game itself was made to be played with more, it does seem a little off.

I would suggest, when the game itself says

Playing with 2,3 players is possible, but not the best for this game

, to automatically have those as practice mode, as to avoid affecting the ranking. This would allow players who enjoy two player games to continue doing so, while giving a much clearer image of the actual ranking and standings of top players.

[Peasteal]

In 6 Nimmt,
If a player plays 2-player games and has wins of 90% they can stay about 600 ELO above their average opponent.
If a player plays 5-player games and has wins of 90% they can stay about 100 ELO above their average opponent.

In 6 nimmt, Chadmild is ranked #1. He only plays 2-player games. I have nothing against Chadmild, he must be the best 1 vs 1 player on the site.
I usually play 5-player games. We will never meet in a game. But the two different ELO equations gives him a 500 ELO advantage over me.

Let us compare:
Chadmil
91% wins …this keeps him at an average of about 710 ELO
Average opponent = 115 ELO (from Sept 1, last 50 games)
Lowest opponents = 20% of his opponents have only 1 ELO
Highest opponents 429, 348, and 4 players in the 200s, the other 44 are apprentices or average.

Wreckage
100% wins…this keeps him at an average of about 570 ELO
Average opponent = 460 ELO (against the same number of opponents)
Lowest opponents = 20% in the 300s , none lower
Highest opponents = 30% are experts, 70% are above Chadmild’s highest opponent, 94% are above his second highest opponent.

Looking back further into our histories is more of the same.

This is not only about me. I think every player that typically plays with 5 or more players knows this is broken.
I understand that the allocation of ELO for winning in multiplayer is reduced for each additional player, but this really isn’t even close to fair.

It’s interesting to note that the players ranked highest of most games on the site play with the minimum # of players allowed. This is not because of better statistics, just better ELO for the same statistics.

Could we please make this more fair?

Total agree

[Mahpa]

I agree with the post.

One trying to solve partially this issue is open an arena mode to 5 player on tactical and pro variation, since it's a complete different game from regular.

How it seems not be possible soon, the best choice is include a kind of factor to balance elo calculation.

It's obvious a game with more players it's harder to win than a 1v1 game.

[demonlord]

I also agree with what @wreckage said above.
another possible solution that comes to mind, possibly for all games, is to have separate elo ratings 2,3 or 4p games and such. the game and the strategy changes with number of players and can't be singularly compared apples to oranges.

[cheval_raye]

I agree with this flaw of the ELO ranking, it should encourage people to play with the intended number of opponents, not with the lowest amount possible.