Current ELO system ruins the game. Only 1st should gain, all others lose equally.

[iamnotyoubutwho]

At the moment the game is being ruined because of how the ELO is distributed.
Even if you don't care about ELO and just want to play, your game will still be ruined because the other players do and will play accordingly.

Every game i have played in, i see people constantly dumping on the last player and bullying them, in hopes of just finishing in 2nd or 3rd so they still gain ELO or don't lose so much.
People rarely try to force on the leader and almost never take tricks to stop lower players from having to take a lot of points.

It is ruining the game and it also creates a very unfriendly and selfish atmosphere.
A lack of honour or sportsmanship is rewarded by the current ELO system for this game.

It is quite clear to anyone who has played hearts that the only ELO system that makes sense is for the winner to take all the ELO and all other players to lose it in equal proportions. Only then would it encourage a proper manner of play and teamwork, trying to bring players closer to the leader instead of just dumping on an bullying one player.

It's really sad that people have mentioned this in the past and it has been ignored.

It really is discouraging me from playing the game, because even though i don't care so much about ELO it still ruins the whole game experience and creates a bad atmosphere. Bad karma should not be rewarded.

If it doesn't change i can't see myself playing that often because it's truly not a nice atmosphere or fun like this. It not only feels wrong in terms of the gameplay but also morally wrong in the dynamics of it.

I wonder how others feel?

[Rocky de Néret]

Hello,

I fully agree with you.

Hearts is one of the games where the atmosphere is the worse.

Your idea makes sense.

Another question: why is it possible for a player who played 15 games to be world number 3 ? Problem with counts on the ELO system ?

[RobertBr]

It is not a problem with ELO it is a problem with the implementation of the game. If that is the correct way to rank players then the game should award 1st to one player and joint 2nd to all others. Then the ELO would be distributed accordingly. In most multiplayer games the player who finishes second has performed better than the player who finishes third and is rewarded accordingly. Because your suggestion focuses on ELO it would ruin most games on the site for the (possible) benefit of one game.

[andycupid]

As I stressed in my previous post (https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 60&t=20542) , I do think this issue needs to be addressed.
I do very much support joint 2nd for places 2~4. The one small problem would be that sometimes the 2nd place player does perform better than 3rd and 4th. For the proper game mechanics though, I still think this rule should be added. (Well, according to experience whatever we say right here is most likely going to be ignored.) It pits the game into a constant 3v1, and that in itself is very different from what the current state of the game is.

[Beorn]

Completely agree. I have posted on this before also. I always say BGA hearts is the only game on BGA that players do not play to win, but play not to lose. There is no attempt to try and win, but instead dump the queen on whoever figuring if they do not finish 4th they still do okay on ELO.. PLEASE fix the ELO system! One winner and other 3 places get a tie for second/last.

[Romain672]

Love letters has the same problem, I suppose it's worst than Hearts.
Lord of Xidit is pretty weird if you play for elo because you want to put more value for stat #1 to not be 4th, but at the same want to put more value for stat #3 to be 1st. While if you only play for first place, you put more value to stat #3 to be 1st.

The main counter argument is if you are in last position with no chance to win. You are then supposed to take all risks you can, which, in some games (french tarot+5players) could totally be counter productive.

[Romain672]

Another question: why is it possible for a player who played 15 games to be world number 3 ? Problem with counts on the ELO system ?

Normally if you are good, and especially in a not much popular game, you can easily reach top 20.
Then, if you played less than (40?) games your K-factor will be higher, so your lose or gain of elo will be higher.

In any case if you don't play for 2 months, you will lose your ranking.
And the arena system is better than the elo system

[Rocky de Néret]

Thank you for your reply. I ignored that the 40 first games were higher K factor.

How does the ranking decreasing works for inactive players ?

[Romain672]

How does the ranking decreasing works for inactive players ?

It doesn't.
You just lose your ranking if you are inactive for 2 months.
If you play after that a single game, you get your ranking back.

[Yasten]

How does the ranking decreasing works for inactive players ?

It doesn't.
You just lose your ranking if you are inactive for 2 months.
If you play after that a single game, you get your ranking back.

Lose your ranking? But can you still play your level like are you considered a beginner even if you reached 100 ELO if you get inactive for 2 months? I hope that's not always the case...