Todos los informes
Informes de Hanabi
#11910: "Limit the rating of "picky" players at Hanabi"
rejected: Los desarrolladores piensan que no es una buena idea o que la relación coste/beneficio es muy alta
49
¿Sobre qué es este informe?
¿Qué ha pasado? Por favor, selecciona una de las opciones siguientes
Sugerencia: en mi opinión, esta idea puede mejorar mucho la implementación del juego
Descripción detallada
• Por favor explica tu sugerencia de manera precisa y concisa para que sea lo más fácil posible entender lo que quieres decir.
In this cooperative game, many players, mainly the "higher" rank players are acting too picky! That means after they made some unwilling mistake in the gameplay - like for example the yield of the mistake are 2 discarded numbers of 3 - they just vote to abbandon the game! I think the rating system should be changed! Such players do not play in the spirit of the game - and if there is some "unpleasant" event - I just call it a challenge - they just cowardly vote to run away from the game. So basicly they can never get a negative ELO. I think such behaviour in a cooperative gameplay should not be accepted. First of all, it is only a game, You do not have to always win.
I was the one who wanted to struggle and continue the game - they just ruined it on purpose! Like why should I just stop playing if the second 3 is discarded??? Come on...
Of course it is not possible to delete the option to quit the game - sometimes the real life duties are calling - so if the players agree to quit the game, so be it. But I think - in this cooperative game, after the finnish, there should be implemented also some sort of self-evaluating of your co-players - to lower their ELO rating after they just wanted to cowardly run away!!!• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v71
Historial de informes
dadojin • Los desarrolladores aún no han podido reproducir el error:
6 feb 2019 12:20 • yeah, not just these guys, but it happens sometimes with the players that they just want to run away easily - not facing the challenge of the cooperative gameplay.
schoolio • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
7 nov 2020 21:18 • I don't really care about the ELO ranking, but is it fair for everyone to get negative points when they weren't the ones to make the mistake? If you can't back out of a game, then many get an unfair negative ranking. There are two ways to look at it.
ComplixVandh • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
31 dic 2020 5:39 • Totally agreed! Collectively abandoning should be like collectively conceding. Players who do this should lose Elo.
Didou13 • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
17 ene 2021 11:05 • Totally disagree with your purpose. You just make a subjective point. See...
pinkyandthebrain • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
19 ene 2021 2:18 • It is a suggestion. By the very nature of suggestions they are subjective opinion pieces.
I too am in total agreement. Abandoning is frustrating, especially when the move is pulled right at the end of the game. It seems to all boil down to this fear of negative ELO. It's a shame BGA got rid of the message about a commitment to see a game through to the end on the accept page.
If people actually read the text in the log and at the end of the game they will see that as long as there are not three bombs then the game is a victory. Serial abandoners might find it cathartic to realise how unimportant a very minor deduction in ELO actually is.
I too am in total agreement. Abandoning is frustrating, especially when the move is pulled right at the end of the game. It seems to all boil down to this fear of negative ELO. It's a shame BGA got rid of the message about a commitment to see a game through to the end on the accept page.
If people actually read the text in the log and at the end of the game they will see that as long as there are not three bombs then the game is a victory. Serial abandoners might find it cathartic to realise how unimportant a very minor deduction in ELO actually is.
LustreOne • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
6 feb 2021 10:31 • I had the same happen to me the very first "public" Hanabi game that I played on BGA. I've played Hanabi a lot in real life with friends, but there is definitely a 'style' of play to this game that needs some familiarity with the other players. A bit of strange luck in the deal and a few rounds in, the high-ELO players were basically forcing the abandonment of the game, rather than trying to play it to completion, essentially ruining the interest/challenge. This "game abandonment to preserve ELO" has totally turned me off playing Hanabi on BGA with players that are not my immediate friends.
master of bluff • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
8 mar 2021 8:04 • join a table that actully suits youre level in bga style and every thing is good . its not always about loosing uniq cards but its playing with weak players who dosent get youre hints its frustrating its like we are playing in two different planet so the best is to abondon
Metalfreak80 • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
10 mar 2021 22:01 •
10 abr 2021 1:49 • I only experienced 1 game where the other player intentionally played wrong cards to end the game. I think it was because I refused to accept to end the game. I do however had multiple occasions of high ranked players immediately asking to end the game, once a perfect game (25points) was no longer possible, either by a fault or just bad luck with the cards. Just to avoid losing ELO points.
Another thing that surprised me in the beginning, when I had zero or low ELO, was that I got a massive amount of rejects from high ranked players, not willing to even start the game. Only 1 or 2 actually played and gave some advise on the extra strategy rules.
Now that I'm more experienced, I can understand it's sometimes a burden to play with low ELO players when they don't understand the usual strategy.
I think this all comes from the definition of how ELO points are given in this game. Higher ranked players have little to gain but much to lose. And playing with "newbies" only increases the chance of losing ELO points.
The calculation of ELO points on a cooperative game like this is up for improvement. It's too much based on calculation for competitive games.
I think higher ranked players should get higher ELO points for playing with lower ELO players and vice versa.
That would actually be more representative to the difficulty of success in the game.
It would also increase the willingness to play with and explain rules to lower ELO players.
This would improve community instead of divide players.
Another thing that surprised me in the beginning, when I had zero or low ELO, was that I got a massive amount of rejects from high ranked players, not willing to even start the game. Only 1 or 2 actually played and gave some advise on the extra strategy rules.
Now that I'm more experienced, I can understand it's sometimes a burden to play with low ELO players when they don't understand the usual strategy.
I think this all comes from the definition of how ELO points are given in this game. Higher ranked players have little to gain but much to lose. And playing with "newbies" only increases the chance of losing ELO points.
The calculation of ELO points on a cooperative game like this is up for improvement. It's too much based on calculation for competitive games.
I think higher ranked players should get higher ELO points for playing with lower ELO players and vice versa.
That would actually be more representative to the difficulty of success in the game.
It would also increase the willingness to play with and explain rules to lower ELO players.
This would improve community instead of divide players.
bidouilIe • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
2 sep 2022 10:42 • Metalfreak80 made one great point. I have another here.
There should be two game mode. One for enjoy/train, another to "compete" (as some seems to think there may be competition in cooperative game…). What we have actually is just a "no score no chrono no abandon" mode (so called training), and "chrono + score + abandon" mode (so called normal). Something doesn't make sense here.
So, what I mean by enjoy/train is, playing for no point, freely. Hence, no ELO, talking allowed, no need of chrono, abandon allowed, etc. (and why not, an undo which have to be collectively agreed, and/or a replay same deck!?) Pleasure and self/mutual improvement.
Counterpart is that ELO mode should not allow talking nor abandon collectively. *That* is the real challenge: you start to engage your points, either win or loose (either by playing or quiting). Nothing else. And for emergency case (as real life happens, we all know that), still possible to go turn/turn! Will to earn? Assume risk.
Also, if you think about scoring, there may be a competitive mode inspired by "duplicate" tarot. It also exists in scrabble and probably lots of other game. Principle is being rate against deck, everyone playing same deals. For example 16 tables each with predefined deck, and round with players rotating on tables, in a way you meet every other. Hence the goal is to make better than others in (almost) same condition (the almost coming from not having same partner on each deal). Where this competition mode is used, it's a really good evaluation of rank, almost cancelling chance variable.
Last but not least, the actual scoring doesn't take difficulty in account. It's by far easier to end with unofficial variant and/or flambs. Still a no flamb + official deal is same reward. Kind of same problem than what Metal talked about above: not scoring because of risk taken. Same way, doing -3 when it was the best possible score and no error is same punishment than if playing an easy deck with big fingers or small focus.
What suprise me about hanabi way of ELO, is that it looks like a subtle and complex process missing its target, and having unwilling side effects. In Bandido, it's +1 if you win, 0 if you loose. 5 or 6 exit, number of player, etc. doesn't matter: ELO is just a victory counter. And gess what? No picky player in Bandido =)
There should be two game mode. One for enjoy/train, another to "compete" (as some seems to think there may be competition in cooperative game…). What we have actually is just a "no score no chrono no abandon" mode (so called training), and "chrono + score + abandon" mode (so called normal). Something doesn't make sense here.
So, what I mean by enjoy/train is, playing for no point, freely. Hence, no ELO, talking allowed, no need of chrono, abandon allowed, etc. (and why not, an undo which have to be collectively agreed, and/or a replay same deck!?) Pleasure and self/mutual improvement.
Counterpart is that ELO mode should not allow talking nor abandon collectively. *That* is the real challenge: you start to engage your points, either win or loose (either by playing or quiting). Nothing else. And for emergency case (as real life happens, we all know that), still possible to go turn/turn! Will to earn? Assume risk.
Also, if you think about scoring, there may be a competitive mode inspired by "duplicate" tarot. It also exists in scrabble and probably lots of other game. Principle is being rate against deck, everyone playing same deals. For example 16 tables each with predefined deck, and round with players rotating on tables, in a way you meet every other. Hence the goal is to make better than others in (almost) same condition (the almost coming from not having same partner on each deal). Where this competition mode is used, it's a really good evaluation of rank, almost cancelling chance variable.
Last but not least, the actual scoring doesn't take difficulty in account. It's by far easier to end with unofficial variant and/or flambs. Still a no flamb + official deal is same reward. Kind of same problem than what Metal talked about above: not scoring because of risk taken. Same way, doing -3 when it was the best possible score and no error is same punishment than if playing an easy deck with big fingers or small focus.
What suprise me about hanabi way of ELO, is that it looks like a subtle and complex process missing its target, and having unwilling side effects. In Bandido, it's +1 if you win, 0 if you loose. 5 or 6 exit, number of player, etc. doesn't matter: ELO is just a victory counter. And gess what? No picky player in Bandido =)
Malo77 • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
4 dic 2022 16:15 • I agree something has to be done, to avoid picky players. Maybee a beginner friendly option / no beginnnger option in the game, and do not allow abandoning. And the ELO in Hanabi do not reward people going to the end enough. So playing with beginners can be complicated/not rewarding as you spend much time explaining, and loose or maybee win 1 or 2 points.
Travis Hall • Esta sugerencia aún no ha sido analizada por los desarrolladores:
28 feb 2024 1:08 • With the change to disallow abandoning cooperative games (substituting conceding instead, with ELO loss for concession) this suggestion is no longer relevant, and should be closed.
Blacktango • Los desarrolladores piensan que no es una buena idea o que la relación coste/beneficio es muy alta:
13 oct 2024 23:15 • Closed since players can't choose to concede a game anymore.
If they leave they will all lose ELO.
If they leave they will all lose ELO.
Agregar a este informe
Por favor agrega aquí cualquier cosa que sea relevante para reproducir este error o entender tu sugerencia:
- Otro ID de partida / ID de jugada
- ¿Se resolvió el problema al pulsar F5?
- ¿Apareció el problema varias veces? ¿Cada vez? ¿Aleatoriamente?
- Si tienes una captura de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar Imgur.com para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.