@Administrator said:
Elo displays the current strength of a player. It's not as a ranking that is set in stone but rather highly volatile. This also encourages new players to take up the challenge to climb up the ladder.
I don't agree that ELO accurately describes the strength of the player. I mean, sure, if they have a higher ELO they likely have some skill, but you ELO can drop like a rock for reasons far beyond your control (being unfairly targeted in play, a poor player or AI throwing off the balance of the game, people gaming the AI, bad luck with the dice, game bugs). ELO makes sense for chess, a one-on-one skill/experience based game, but not for a game reliant on luck as much as skill (that can be quickly thrown out of balance by other players/AI).
Admittedly mine has taken a beating lately because I've given up caring (as much) about ELO and I'm less inclined these days to stick out playing a game that isn't fun, is highly unbalanced from the start (there are some bad board designs out there), or players are being jerks. [Heck, when I cared a lot about ELO, it kind of re-enforced playing like a jerk, because you have to protect that ELO]
Other ranking systems can be devised that accurately reflect the skill and experience of a good player, without punishing them for bad luck or simply wanting to play a fun (non-competitive/ranking) game, while encouraging new players to climb up the ranks.
2 and 3 are good numbers in 90% of the games. You win with no problem having important resources on those numbers.
because while trying to play Duell, my fellow players were kicked 
out constantly. So I was counted as "winner"! Now everyone turns on me in multiplayer games, haha! Don´t take ELO too serious. It cannot be representative while kicktimer 
"works" so, ahem, polite word, "shaky"! 
