the *decreasing ELO gain if you win against the same players rule*

[joyoy]

in some games like Gamme Logic, the result is not dependent on other players' personal style or strategy.
whatever ELO they have is also only dependent on their personal skill. no interaction. someone with 700 ELO has (in perfect theory) the exact same skill or winning chance as someone else with 700 ELO. thus, when you win against the same skill level, you should win the same ELO.

the reality: assume I have played against player X 20 times before and won 15 times - and I played against player Y once and won once.
I will win much much more ELO against the second player. just because I have played/won against him much less in the past.
I need the same skill to win against any of them, 700 ELO, but the result is immensely different.

1) how is this any fair or appropriate in games like Gamme Logic?
2) it is highly discouraging & non-motivating.. for someone like me for example who wants to reach 1150 or 1200 ELO, but 1200 ELO feels almost impossible to me ... there are only so many (so few) high ELO players to play and win against, that soon I will barely win anything even against 1100 ELO.

request
completely remove that rule of less Elo gain against the same players in Gamme Logic (and other games that don't depend on interaction/playstyle).
or reduce the Elo win decline by at least 70% - so that one can still play more than ~10 with the same players without sometimes gaining close to nothing (this is even more important in games with a medium or low player base)!

[FrankJones]

I do not understand your post.

What do you mean, "The result is not dependent on other players' personal style or strategy." ?

The result (meaning, who wins and who loses) depends on something other than the players' personal style or strategy? Or, are you referring not to the result (W or L), but rather, to the Elo change?

I would just give a temporary red thumb to someone after winning 3 in a row. After an unspecified period of time, the Elo decay resets and you can play that player again without having any reduction for winning 3+ games in a row.

[joyoy]

maybe the current rule itself is the reason it is hard to understand^^

there is no interaction in Gamme Logic. everyone plays for themselves and then the times will be compared. therefore other player playstyle have no influence on your time/result. strategy between players does not exist.

therefore everything that does have influence is contained in the Elo. therefore if 2 players have 700 Elo, it is kind of irrational and non-motivating that I can win 10 Elo against player 1 and close to 0,0 Elo against the other ... just because I have played much more against player 2.
I could even have the same win ratio against them - but the Elo gain difference still holds!

your last passage, I dont understand why that would or should work. and I definitely dont give red thumbs to players without any relevant reason.

[Jeromie]

As I understand it, the purpose of that "consecutive victories" rule is to limit the ability of players to grind ELO against the same opponents. The style of the game makes no difference.

[joyoy]

have you read anything?
then why do you write that, and please can you give reasons?
otherwise such a comment is pretty meaningless.

just using a different word like 'grinding' for the same problem makes no difference. it is just the simpler phrase of what I described long and detailed, what is unproductive or flawed about this rule.

[Emerson_Matt]

The problem that the Elo reduction is solving is when someone wants to boost their Elo by repeatedly playing the same much-weaker player (possibly fixed, possibly not). This has nothing to do with interaction-levels in the game.

There are good reasons to think that the cure is worse than disease, but they don't have to do with the particular game or the interaction within it.

[Meamer]

There's a massive thread of complaints about this feature from back when it was first introduced, none of which swayed BGA.

[Jellby]

in some games like Gamme Logic, the result is not dependent on other players' personal style or strategy.

The result depends a lot on the other players' personal style and strategy, in particular on their speed.

But in any case, the reason for the reduced elo exchange is independent of that, and applies to Gamme Logic as much as to any other game.

[Jeromie]

have you read anything?
then why do you write that, and please can you give reasons?
otherwise such a comment is pretty meaningless.

just using a different word like 'grinding' for the same problem makes no difference. it is just the simpler phrase of what I described long and detailed, what is unproductive or flawed about this rule.

I wrote that because you say that your game is a unique snowflake and the rule shouldn't apply to it. You want us to understand your situation but you did not demonstrate understanding of why this rule is in place.

What I meant by grinding was more eloquently explained by Emerson_Matt: its a real problem.

And at the risk of making you even more angry at me, it's a problem caused by people who pay too much attention to their ELO, like you do. If you want competition, you should play Arena. As long as people are allowed to pick their opponents and game settings, ELO will not mean much.

I'm not sure the solution is ideal, but at the very least it gives less incentive to play uneven matches, and that probably means less newer or weaker players discouraged from the beating.

[joyoy]

in some games like Gamme Logic, the result is not dependent on other players' personal style or strategy.

The result depends a lot on the other players' personal style and strategy, in particular on their speed.

But in any case, the reason for the reduced elo exchange is independent of that, and applies to Gamme Logic as much as to any other game.

I dont like to repeat myself by the third time...

so this shall be the last time please.
the only think that counts is the time.

if only the time counts, no matter if it includes a certain 'style' .. and the time from every player is fully *independent* from every other player ..
then the times are used for determining the Elo, not any styles .. and no gameplay interaction exists between players, everyone solves the puzzles on their own.

completely different for example from chess, or let alone any game with many players interacting and interfering the gameplay. then individual styles and approaches come into effect and winning against different players can have different worth (since some are much better suites against some other style)