Turn order only made it worse

[DJB is da GOAT]

Having a first and second player in a game where everyone has the same information is not only useless, but is a horrible tack on. Going first itself has NO benefit whatsoever, so whoever goes 2nd just has a free chance to draw, which makes the game even more luck based. At least before there was some strategy as to how many combos to break it down to, but this is outright awful.

[joekerstef]

I absolutely agree. Solving after someone has already solved the puzzle is like "here's your participation trophy. Everyone's a winner!" The other BGA games I play rarely have ties, and when they do, there's some sort of tiebreaker (sometimes multiple tiebreakers) so someone still generally wins. Most of my Digit Code games since the change was made have resulted in ties, and that's just not very fun.

[mbcoll]

I would disagree, a lot of times the winner was just the person who guessed correctly when only two options were left for one digit. Update, I now agree, dislike the turn order

[DJB is da GOAT]

The point is that extra chance is unfair for the first player. Not to mention how luck based it already is with that 50/50 you mentioned. Think of it this way, if the first player gets a 50/50 then the 2nd player has a 50% chance to solve also. So it essentially becomes a 25% for first player to win, 25% for second player to win. But if the second player is the first to reach the 50/50 (which is just as likely as turn order has no difference), then the 2nd player has a 75% chance to win (guessing right or first player guessing wrong) and a 25% chance to draw (guessing wrong and first player guessing right). It is not a fair system when the first player is fighting for a draw and the second player is fighting for a win.

[hamcha]

I hope the Digit Code system will be improved soon.
If it's a draw, both players should be at equal levels.
I don't understand why players with higher levels end up losing out.

[Jellby]

If it's a draw, both players should be at equal levels.
I don't understand why players with higher levels end up losing out.

Because if two players are tied their elo scores should become more similar: the lower one increases, the higher one decreases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

[Mass_Dicestruction]

Hi,
I agree. The issue with the tie breaker is that the second player now knows that it is possible to find the code. So if they didn't get their yet, they now have the opportunity to rethink their solution.
This may not work with a timer but this broke the game for round based games.

[madmick42]

"Ties" are ruining tournaments. I got eliminated after solving the code first.
Every game has an element of luck

[Moose 5566]

I absolutely agree. Solving after someone has already solved the puzzle is like "here's your participation trophy. Everyone's a winner!" The other BGA games I play rarely have ties, and when they do, there's some sort of tiebreaker (sometimes multiple tiebreakers) so someone still generally wins. Most of my Digit Code games since the change was made have resulted in ties, and that's just not very fun.

Or what about if you tie (your guessed right first) and you still lose ELO because they had lesser ELO. A tie should be a tie or else get rid of it.

[Jellby]

Or what about if you tie (your guessed right first) and you still lose ELO because they had lesser ELO. A tie should be a tie or else get rid of it.

Yes, what about it? If you tie with another player, your elos should get closer. The higher one decreases and the lower decreases. Elo is a skill evaluation, not an achievement system. So yes, you did not beat the other player, so your elo should not be higher than theirs.