Suggestion for graded scoring

[tizip]

At the moment, the scoring is a simple 1 point for the player who wins, and 0 for everyone else. That makes for some pretty unfair scoring, depending on how close the other players came to completing their collections.

Could it be possible to calculate scores on how many birds one already has in one's collection? Probably some maths required, since 3+3 is only 6 points, but winning with 7*1 is 7.

[nccc]

It's rejected.
https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=34003

[pjt33]

It would be a definite improvement to only do Elo calculations with the winner.

[RicardoRix]

Note: ELO has nothing to do with score only the final position of the players, nor should it.

I've talked with Een a couple of times with lots of emails about this subject.

The BGA reason behind this is, the numbers (1's and 0's) are the positional result of the players.
BUT most games leave the score as they are displayed in-game, and by-in-large this works both ways.

From a dev's point-of-view the only variable we can change in order to alter the results, is the player_score field for each player in the database for the game. The BGA framework handles all of the rest.

The BAD thing from the developer point-of-view, is that we are expected to use a specifically the 'player_score' for both the running total during the game and also this final results display page. This is not great. Right at the end of the game, the dev has to switch out the running total player_score and insert the result. Why not just have a separate field for the position? This would make more sense.

Together with this some games have very unique requirements for the final result page and also given ELO results can be calculated based on positions, there can be some scenarios where you can't accomplish a sensible outcome.

I'm sure there are others but I will use my game 'Palace' as an example:
4 player game, I want to label just the last place person a Loser, the first 3 are winners. That's the general theme of the game, the last person is the only loser and everyone mockingly points fingers and laughs. So to do this I need to assign, players score 1,1,1,0. And now for the ELO calculation it assumes that the first 3 players have drawn, and ELO 500 dude that went out first now loses ELO to the other players that went out in 2nd and 3rd spot. That's not good.

So a very long story to say that BGA won't budge.

I did propose that as devs we could have a new results field in the player table and if it's used (for newer games) then BGA uses this and if not fallback to how it's currently done. I was told: 'Please don't force your specific game requirements onto the framework'......

[Een]

So a very long story to say that BGA won't budge.

I did propose that as devs we could have a new results field in the player table and if it's used (for newer games) then BGA uses this and if not fallback to how it's currently done.

Seems like you didn't budge much either

Having the possibility for the game module to define ranking directly instead of indirectly through scoring would change nothing. Players with the same rank would still be considered tied, and the ELO formula would apply just the same.

I was told: 'Please don't force your specific game requirements onto the framework'......

Yes, but you are removing proper context. This was after you refused the solution I proposed you (used in other games) to have the running score as a specific counter in the player panel, and use the BGA score to indicate winners/losers as required for handling game results. So I proposed a solution, you refused it and tried to impose us to do your bidding (without any regard to our opinion on the matter). And by the way, it still feels that way. I can understand that you are sure to be right (a lot of people are that way), but please consider that forcing your opinions on other people is not always well received.

[RicardoRix]

please consider that forcing your opinions on other people is not always well received.

well it's at this point I give up, because to me I am merely making a suggestion to try and help improve the BGA framework. If that's taken as me being arrogant then I'm not going to continue trying.

Long story short, you still have a problem, hence this thread.
AFAIK you still have the problem of 'shared placement' games where ELO is exchanged between same position players.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=147942627
Using a single field player_score in the player table for 2 different things is wrong IMO.

[Een]

Long story short, you still have a problem, hence this thread.
AFAIK you still have the problem of 'shared placement' games where ELO is exchanged between same position players.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=147942627

Maybe (I'm not the expert on ELO, and in the suggestion report linked above I answered only about the way to properly rank Cubirds players, not about the way to handle ELO for shared placement), but that is quite separate from the point you pushed forward in your post.

Using a single field player_score in the player table for 2 different things is wrong IMO.

That opinion has been noted, and I have spent time explaining you my own opinion. I did exchange several emails with you on the subject. And I don't think that at any point I pulled a citation from you out of context. Sorry if my answer was a little stingy, but I have to say that I feel pretty bad that you did that.

[pjt33]

From a dev's point-of-view the only variable we can change in order to alter the results, is the player_score field for each player in the database for the game. The BGA framework handles all of the rest.

Yes, I realise that it would need a framework change, but there are games (e.g. Hanabi) where BGA seems to have worked with the developer to adapt the Elo adjustments to make sense for the game.

[RicardoRix]

Long story short, you still have a problem, hence this thread.
AFAIK you still have the problem of 'shared placement' games where ELO is exchanged between same position players.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=147942627

Maybe (I'm not the expert on ELO, and in the suggestion report linked above I answered only about the way to properly rank Cubirds players, not about the way to handle ELO for shared placement), but that is quite separate from the point you pushed forward in your post.

Using a single field player_score in the player table for 2 different things is wrong IMO.

That opinion has been noted, and I have spent time explaining you my own opinion. I did exchange several emails with you on the subject. And I don't think that at any point I pulled a citation from you out of context. Sorry if my answer was a little stingy, but I have to say that I feel pretty bad that you did that.

I don't think it's out of context, 'payer_score', the results page positions and ELO are all linked. The dev for the game will be held responsible if things 'aren't right'. Just like here for CuBirds, and others that try to pull me up for Palace.

I don't understand your standing and I don't really understand why you're upset. Here in this thread, I am trying to spell out the reasoning behind the choices that a dev has to face, and where the line is drawn between the dev's control and the BGA framework, I believe that is all accurate and I've described that pretty well.

Yes, but you are removing proper context. This was after you refused the solution I proposed you (used in other games) to have the running score as a specific counter in the player panel, and use the BGA score to indicate winners/losers as required for handling game results. So I proposed a solution, you refused it and tried to impose us to do your bidding (without any regard to our opinion on the matter). And by the way, it still feels that way. I can understand that you are sure to be right (a lot of people are that way), but please consider that forcing your opinions on other people is not always well received.

In this game there is nothing in the JS the dev (me) has done to change the score in the player panel.
I hacked the player table and entered a '4' and now the scores in the player panel have been updated.

It's not that I am refusing to follow your suggestion, I am pointing out that this is just the natural order of the framework.
I am arguing from a holistic point-of-view to try and improve the BGA framework for all. I am in no way trying to 'force my opinion', I just simply have one.

Either way I am sorry I have offended you, that's not my intention, and I do not want to continue any further with this conversation, I was here mainly to address the CuBirds posters trying to inform them of some details they might not have been aware of.

[Alice-hime]

Hi,
I love this game, too, and am unhappy with the final scoring as well.
My suggestion is to keep playing without the winner(s) until there's only one winner and loser left, like in many other games.
Although I know that these are not the original rules, please consider adding this as an option. That way, players can be ranked, and if not officially, then at least privately, without any impact on ELO.