Hearts is a conflicting game. In many other games, I'm playing to get a better score. In Hearts, the only winner is the player who finished with the most points; the others are all declared losers. This is a pretty universal consensus in forums worldwide.
The problem with the ELO system has discussed before, and since there are too many people who seem over-obsessed with virtual points and find weird ways to expose the system, the problems won't be touched here. In arena, however, things are slightly different.
As of right now, the arena is the primary "competitive" system. In the current system, 1st and 2nd place players are rewarded points, just like the simple ELO system. There have been wide discussions regarding kingmaking and fighting for 2nd place, and how these are unhealthy for the environment. From a competitive standpoint, players play differently when aiming for second, and the reward system invites such behavior. Normally, if every player besides the winner is considered loser, they'd form a united front trying to share losses and play in a strategic manner to dump the most points onto the winner. When another player overtakes then the alliance changes. Such is the skill-heavy aspect of the game, and the current point system disregards such a skill-set, meaning high-score players aren't necessarily skilled. And unlike other games, playing more might not even propel your score, meaning neither time nor effort are deciding factors. On the other hand, a proportion of players dislike such behavior so much that they go on accusing other players of kingmaking or aiming for 2nd intentionally, when in reality they simply don't have any other choice. This is also unhealthy for the friendly player base, and for players simply logging in BGA to have fun with a competitive spirit. In the other forums, many skilled players have stated they stray away from this classic simply because of this, which is rather sad.
Can there be an alternative? Most of the time, suggestions and discussions here are overlooked, but perhaps allowing one 1st place and 3 2nd place can solve the issue? In arena, at the lower leagues, perhaps reward the winner 4 or 5 shields and deduct the three losers 1 shield each, so that in the long term points should inflate. I don't know whether this is an easy fix, so I'd like to hear out the community's thoughts. I am aware that in some games, skill does divide score, and in many situations the 2nd place player is indeed better than the 3rd and 4th, and again, most players don't know how to collaborate and defend and share information through passed cards. Still, the better players should be getting more than 30% wins, which means that the point system should do them justice. Currently I post a win rate (1st place) of more than a third, and frankly I'm either first or last (yes, trying too hard to save my fellow players just to be back-stabbed), so I do have a certain degree of understanding of the game. What are your thoughts?
The problem with the ELO system has discussed before, and since there are too many people who seem over-obsessed with virtual points and find weird ways to expose the system, the problems won't be touched here. In arena, however, things are slightly different.
As of right now, the arena is the primary "competitive" system. In the current system, 1st and 2nd place players are rewarded points, just like the simple ELO system. There have been wide discussions regarding kingmaking and fighting for 2nd place, and how these are unhealthy for the environment. From a competitive standpoint, players play differently when aiming for second, and the reward system invites such behavior. Normally, if every player besides the winner is considered loser, they'd form a united front trying to share losses and play in a strategic manner to dump the most points onto the winner. When another player overtakes then the alliance changes. Such is the skill-heavy aspect of the game, and the current point system disregards such a skill-set, meaning high-score players aren't necessarily skilled. And unlike other games, playing more might not even propel your score, meaning neither time nor effort are deciding factors. On the other hand, a proportion of players dislike such behavior so much that they go on accusing other players of kingmaking or aiming for 2nd intentionally, when in reality they simply don't have any other choice. This is also unhealthy for the friendly player base, and for players simply logging in BGA to have fun with a competitive spirit. In the other forums, many skilled players have stated they stray away from this classic simply because of this, which is rather sad.
Can there be an alternative? Most of the time, suggestions and discussions here are overlooked, but perhaps allowing one 1st place and 3 2nd place can solve the issue? In arena, at the lower leagues, perhaps reward the winner 4 or 5 shields and deduct the three losers 1 shield each, so that in the long term points should inflate. I don't know whether this is an easy fix, so I'd like to hear out the community's thoughts. I am aware that in some games, skill does divide score, and in many situations the 2nd place player is indeed better than the 3rd and 4th, and again, most players don't know how to collaborate and defend and share information through passed cards. Still, the better players should be getting more than 30% wins, which means that the point system should do them justice. Currently I post a win rate (1st place) of more than a third, and frankly I'm either first or last (yes, trying too hard to save my fellow players just to be back-stabbed), so I do have a certain degree of understanding of the game. What are your thoughts?
