Bismarck rating reform

How is it possible that a friend was the leader in their game before the last round of games and then one user left the game and the friend got -2 points and whoever was in second place at that moment got 50 points and the one who left got -48 (that's logical)??? This new system really sucks and I believe that many people think so too :)

-40 seems too much. -20 would be better and 20 for the winner seems realistic. Second place doesn't get much anyway, either or -.

Well, I'm not happy with this rating format. Why are only 8 people's opinions taken into account, even though their opinions are different. Who is for the new and who is against. It's an abnormal system now. Most people here play to raise their rating a little, but if you still lose 50 points, instead of losing -2, it still makes you angry. Today's game ended, the score was: 0 2 and -2, but the last one lost 50 points. This is wrong. Put the original calculation back. I think the majority will agree with me :)

I agree with Artsani and Bluff...a crappy system....

As long as I've played Bismarck in my life (mostly 11 years ago in a room with Tiidu and Jaanus), winning and losing have always counted. In our case, 2nd place meant taking out the trash and 3rd place cleaning the room. The winner threw himself on the bed and watched the action with satisfaction. No one cared what score the places were divided with, what mattered was that someone won and someone lost. The same system is now in Vind - it doesn't matter if you win with a 30 or 3 result, the important thing is that you win. It hurts to lose with a result of -2, but isn't it sweet to win with a result of 2? The same system is used in 4-player perekidnois - someone wins, someone loses. No one cares how many cards you have left in your hand when you lose. The rules are the same for everyone. In addition - there will be no more ridiculous ratings of -2000 and 4000. All other games on Vint.ee use a rating system, where the stronger ones win ratings from the stronger ones. Now this system is also in Bismarck.

I agree that the system is similar everywhere. If you lose in Sudoku so that one square remains unfilled, it's a narrow loss, and that doesn't make the victory any less diluted. Similarly, if you play the whole game evenly in chess and make a stupid mistake at the end, that doesn't mean you should somehow get a stronger player to lose. Before, it was just fun for the stronger players to increase their rating, you get used to it and everything is ok.

And I also like the current system better. Why are you whining, just play for the game, not for the points.

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 you picked up or lost while playing. If you play two games and a 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 the cards you get. There are no weaker or stronger ones here.

And you yourself ... only play for the game?? Why don't I believe that? Then the points could be eliminated altogether.

if it is 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 still falls into place.. I don't see any reason (meaningful argument) in this case, how is it a game that would need a different rating system.