Salanael wrote: ↑14 December 2023, 14:20
I agree.
I was sick of toxic "masters" whining as soon as the others do not play as "perfectly" as them. ELO is for competitive games, not cooperative ones.
ELO is useful for helping to understand a player's familiarity with accepted conventions. Hanabi is a cooperative game, but that doesn't mean it's not competitive -- it's a group challenge.
I'm not perfect, but I expect 900+ ELO Masters to understand the more complex conventions. It's not about "ego," it's about knowing that the players at my table will understand the clues I give, and they trust me to understand theirs and not bomb us out, or require recluing.
For instance, I don't expect a 700 ELO Master to necessarily understand that a promised card is as good as clued. So if that promised card gets to their chop, I'll likely save it with a number clue. But I DO expect a 900 ELO Master a) to move their chop by one, and b) if I clue that card with a number on the chop, then the whole table knows that it's being *reclued* for a reason.
I play because I enjoy the challenge of the puzzle. I absolutely love when a multi-hand layered clue goes off without a hitch. Or when a player understands when a multi-card numbered clue on the chop is for chop focused play, not leftmost. Or understand when a multi and colour card are tagged with a colour, the focus is the colour (unless the multi is playable).
ELO helps us all to make better choices at the Hanabi table.
If you're finding that you're disagreeing with players about how to interpret clues (particularly in 3+ player games), I highly recommend perusing H-Group's site. It's the most comprehensive Hanabi convention system around. Their more advanced conventions (like Layered and Clandestine) can be added in as your table's skill level increases. Most Masters on BGA play with H-group conventions -- even if they aren't aware of the source -- and Hanabi is better when everyone plays with the same conventions. You can play well enough without agreeing on the more complex conventions, but -- as you've experienced -- you're going to run into misunderstandings since you're actually speaking different dialects (like Mandarin and Cantonese both using the same writing)
Now, there's a difference between giving wrong/misleading/bad clues (and/or misinterpreting a good clue) and giving a subpar/inefficent clue. I think some people can be really quick to criticize subpar/inefficent clues and treat them as badly as a bad clue. But they are not the same. Bad clues cause bombs or require correction. Subpar/inefficent clues still work, but require more clues, delay play, or increase the loss of useful cards. Masters do commonly conflate the two, and bicker over subpar clues instead of gently coaching after the game. I will, however, admit to getting frustrated with bad clues/plays, but I'm equally quick to apologize when I've given a bad clue myself.
Some Masters get insulted when I send the following link because they don't think of themselves as "beginners" but it's just about making sure everyone has the same foundation. The site quickly advances to more complex clues, so just start with this:
https://hanabi.github.io/beginner
ETA: currently, BGA players don't generally play 'chop focus' and multi player games don't save 2s on chop 'early.' Most of the other conventions still work, with 'left-most focus.'
