RE: Why Splinterlands Collection Power is a HUGE MISTAKE (despite my previous post)
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The reason why a pure ELO would be problematic for Splinterlands is because a game of Splinterlands is not pure skill. Card collections (the pay to win component) is important and there is also a heavy dose of randomness.
If Splinterlands was a game where everyone had access to the same cards. And then once both players submitted a team, the computer did one million simulations to decide who which team would win on average. In that scenario, then I agree a pure ELO system would make sense.
But there are lots of cases where the winner of a game is 50/50. And situations where one player chose the much stronger team but due to bad luck (like lots of misses), they end of losing. Chess doesn't have to deal with such scenarios.
Your arguments don't support your thesis - they are entirely disjoint and orthogonal except for the fact that ELO is best known for pure skill games. Yes, Splinterlands has luck as well as skill. But why does that make straight ELO bad? Same question about unequal card pools? And how do the two modifications that the team slapped on top of ELO compensate for whatever was bad about ELO?
And what about the second suggestion? All that is really needed is a minor adjustment to the end of season reset . . . .
Did I err in making ELO the first solution so no one pays attention to the second?