[i]posted by Rauing[/i] [quote][i]posted by blufar[/i] There is nothing equal here. The loser still loses too many points and you can always come up with whatever system you want (the loser goes for beer or whatever). The original calculation is still better. It didn't bother anyone if someone had 3000 or 4000. The points still remained the same, whether they were collected or lost while playing. If you play two games and the card doesn't run, almost 100 points have gone. Where do you see equality here? Bismarck is still more of a game of luck..it all depends on how the cards are dealt. There are no weaker or stronger ones here. [/quote] if it's a game of luck and there are no weaker or stronger ones, why look at this rating at all. One day you lose a few hundred points, the next day you win the same amount back.. In the end, everything falls into place.. I don't see a reason (meaningful argument) in this case either, how is it a game that would require a different rating system.
It's not different...just the original system should apply. That way, everyone can come up with their own system to think.Bismarck rating reform
Read by 119 users
The problem with the rating calculation in this game is that there are 3 players. If you want ratings like in other games, then take the calculation there as an example. In chess, checkers and elsewhere I don't lose -50 and I don't win 50 either. It's logical then: the first one wins points from the third one, the third one loses points to the first one, the second place gets 0, or the fun of the game. If the difference between the first and third ratings is very large, the first one doesn't get anything. Then the third one's minuses will be smaller and the second place won't get anything anytime soon.
The system of awarding points should be changed in cases where a player leaves the table in the middle of the game or does not make a move in time. At the moment, the player with the highest score gets first place. But some players' stronger side of the game, such as trump dealing or stacking, is still ahead. Plus, there is also this option: I make a game board, I have to take six tricks right away and I take them, score 0, the second takes four tricks, 1, then the third player decides to go and play - as a result, I get second place, hallelujah. I haven't delved into the solution at the moment, but there should be enough smart heads here...
[i]posted by verywell[/i] The point distribution system should be changed in cases where a player leaves the table in the middle of the game or does not make a move in time.
Yes, we will soon make a solution so that the one who leaves loses to both other players.
Well, if the internet sucks, there's no point in playing at all. I'm 20 ahead of everyone and if the internet sucks, then....there's no point in playing at all anymore...
One cool option is coming soon. For example, if 2200, 2200 and 1200 are playing, then 1200, coming in second, earns a lot of points as the winner of the game :)
But what's wrong with that? It's the same in other games. The number of points depends on the rating. For example, if red wins the tournament, green comes in second, and there are also blue and black in the game, then second place gets more points than first.