Fort ELO et ELO inactif

[Manauser]

Bonjour à tous

voici le petit sujet qui me taraude actuellement.

J'ai constaté une très forte propension des joueurs avec des ELO énorme (genre les membres du top 10 de certains jeux) à jouer avec le classement ELO désactivé.
Quand on leur demande, ils répondent qu'ils ont pas envie de se prendre la tête, qu'ils jouent pour s'amuser, que l'ELO n'a aucun intéret, etc... Et c'est tout à fait leur droit...
Cependant, je me dis que si une personne à atteint 800 points d'ELO à Seasons, RFTG ou à colin maillard, c'est bien qu'à une époque, il a beaucoup du jouer avec le classement actif.
Ces joueurs ont ils mis tant de tant que ça pour trouver la fonction "désactiver le classement pour la partie"?
Je joues aux échecs en club et j'ai connu pas mal de joueurs qui ont, une fois atteint un classement honorable, cessé de faire des parties officielles pour ne plus qu'on puisse faire baisser leur ELO. Je soupçonne de nombreux joueurs d'avoir cette même mentalité. Quand ils débutaient, ils étaient bien content de trouver des parties classées pour montrer leur valeur et grimper dans le classement, et même quand ils ont atteint un classement correct, ils ont continuer à grimper... Mais comme par hasard, aujourd'hui où ils paradent en tête, ils semblent trouver l'ELO futile et refuse de jouer avec le classement actif, empêchant ceux qui rêvent de les rejoindre au sommet de tenter leur chance.
Bien sûr, c'est tout à fait leur droit, mais pour ma part, je trouve ça frustrant et irrespectueux de les voir jouer en se pavanant, montrant fièrement leur ELO qu'ils ne perdront jamais puisqu'ils ne le remettent jamais en jeu.

Je n'ai pas l'intention de réformer le site, j'ai pas des tonnes de solutions à proposer, c'est difficile d'obliger les gens à jouer en classement actif et je vois peu de moyens de les y inciter (faire perdre de l'ELO à chaque fois qu'ils font des parties non classées au delà d'un certain nombre par jour peut être sympa, s'ils veulent jouer, qu'ils soient joueurs.)
J'avais juste envie de pousser un coup de gueule contre les "intouchables".

[Bumbo88]

Bonjour,

On ressent de la frustration dans ton post mais libre à toi de dépasser ces joueurs inactifs en faisant des parties classés.

De plus les joueurs ne jouant pas de "classée"pendant un long moment sont invisibles au classement donc aucun problème.

Cordialement

[VolgaChaser]

I feel your pain. I stopped paying for BGA for a while because I feel they really are unfair with ratings. I started again because I want to support their work.

A year or two ago they changed the way they calculate ELO changes, so the top of the many leaderboards are people who were on a lucky streak when the change happened. In many cases it is impossible to surpass them. There are a lot of argument for and against various systems, but if someone can be the best in the world at a game and play lots of volume but have 0% chance of having the highest ELO you know there is something wrong.

[Liallan]

It is true that if you don't play ranked games for a while you get pulled out of those lists, and it doesn't take all that long.

And for someone to leave because of this -- I guess I'd have to ask, are you playing for for fun, or playing for a rank and no other reason?

And who gets to decide who is "best in the world"? Is that something official for BGA to determine? Is this site so very important in the scheme of things that we're here to determine who is best in the world? Not to diminish the site or anything, but really, is that its purpose? If I had a reason to want to know who the best players were (and I don't), I sure wouldn't come here looking for it. I wouldn't go to any gaming site like this for that purpose. If you think you're better than the listed best player, is it good enough to just know that, or is it that important that everyone else knows it too? (I think we're all aware those ranking lists are far from perfect, so I don't take them too seriously.)

I've never been at any site where people did not complain about how rankings were done, because there is no such thing as a perfect way to do it. While I understand the frustration, and even the need to bitch about it, in the end rankings should be something extra and fun to do, and not the reason we're here, or the reason to play, or the most important thing about the site.

[VolgaChaser]

You may have misread where I said paying for playing. Obviously the main reason we play is for fun but for me competition and the chase is fun.

Working hard on a game and being stuck behind someone who got to number 1 years ago and only playing in ranked games since then is frustrating. Not saying it stops me from playing

[Liallan]

You may have misread where I said paying for playing.

You're right, I did misread that, sorry.

But it doesn't change anything about this concept of being "best in the world" or anything else. And I did say I know it's frustrating. But I think it's also important where I said that there's no perfect system, and that everywhere I go someone will find fault with the way it's done. It's not like I've never suffered the frustration of things like this, and the frustration doesn't always come from a bad system, but sometimes just circumstances. It's just that I have never seen a perfect system, and I've never really seen any suggestions for solving it that I thought would work well and wouldn't just cause other problems. (Like the concept of decay - I've never once seen a method suggested for that that I thought would be fair to everyone.)

[ollyfish2002]

Simple Decay : 1 elo point per day, whatever you do in all games. Maybe restricted to 100 as we are not beginner in those games. It needs 2 years for a master to fall down without playing.
This way, we will win more by playing.
BUT, this will mean to have aside the ELO, maximum ELO reached by this player : someone on the top years ago will have ELO=100; he will gain a massive increase of ELO playing winning against top ELO nowadays.
my 2p (or 2c)

[Liallan]

Simple Decay : 1 elo point per day, whatever you do in all games. Maybe restricted to 100 as we are not beginner in those games. It needs 2 years for a master to fall down without playing.

Here we go again... That will depend on the game. Sure, "Master" has a meaning, but the top people on some games aren't Masters. I don't think those names have much real meaning anyway, because how those ELO scores lay out depends on the game. The top player might be at 400, and in a bit over a year they're down to nothing. While skills do decay a bit over time, you're not going to be like a total beginner after a year. And even if someone doesn't play something for a mere 2 months, they drop 60 points! That's a lot. It amazes me that people don't really think about how much that is. And sometimes people just don't have the time to play all the games they know all the time. The other thing people don't seem to realize is what it would take for people who know a lot of games to keep up their ELO scores, or the kind of effect that has on people only playing turn-based. It might take me 2 months or more just to finish a game.

Right now most of my games aren't ranked because I wasn't starting new ones. (I had reason for finishing up what games I had running.) But I did not lose any skill on any of them because of that. Well, except for a couple of things that are new to me so I've forgotten even how to play them. But just for example, I haven't played Chinagold since February. When I'm ranked, I'm in the top 20. (A little irrelevant since it's not the most popular game.) That would be around 150 ELO drop for me, knocking me back to about 220. Why do I deserve that? I would lose enough off Can't Stop to be knocked back to about 20 - I'm not exactly great at that game, but I can guarantee I haven't gotten any worse at it and shouldn't have to start over. In fact, because I play only turn-based and don't play tons of games at once, I'd be constantly starting over again at Apprentice in most of the games I play.

I get that some people will do things on purpose to cheat the system, but stuff like this to try to take care of it just ends up hurting a lot of other people who don't deserve it. I meant it when I said I'd never heard one suggestion of this that I thought would work right and be fair to everyone. (Or at least not without making it extremely complicated, and not without the system having to understand certain behaviors that it would never be able to judge or comprehend.)

[ollyfish2002]

And even if someone doesn't play something for a mere 2 months, they drop 60 points! That's a lot. It amazes me that people don't really think about how much that is. And sometimes people just don't have the time to play all the games they know all the time. The other thing people don't seem to realize is what it would take for people who know a lot of games to keep up their ELO scores

This means that you care about your ELO points and your ranking more than playing.
60 points in 2 months : if you know the game, it will take you 2 games against a strong player especially if you are back to low player level.
Real master players will be back on the top quickly and the others can expect to climb in the list with such a decay.

[Liallan]

And even if someone doesn't play something for a mere 2 months, they drop 60 points! That's a lot. It amazes me that people don't really think about how much that is. And sometimes people just don't have the time to play all the games they know all the time. The other thing people don't seem to realize is what it would take for people who know a lot of games to keep up their ELO scores

This means that you care about your ELO points and your ranking more than playing.

No, I don't. But I still don't want drops in my ELO. There's nothing wrong with people having interest in their ELO, without it being "more important" than playing. Furthermore, it can also be a way to find similar-strength players, even if you don't care about the number itself. There does come a point when someone seems to care more about ELO than playing, but simply "caring about" ELO doesn't mean they care "more." Besides, if people can't care about it, why even bother?

60 points in 2 months : if you know the game, it will take you 2 games against a strong player especially if you are back to low player level.
Real master players will be back on the top quickly and the others can expect to climb in the list with such a decay.

That's assuming you actually win, and even if you are a strong player yourself, it doesn't mean you always win. And for someone playing turn-based, where it might take 2 months to even finish the game, that could all be lost again. Play more than one at once? Well, there's where the problem comes in that people can only play so many games, and for someone who knows a lot of them (and maybe would like to play a variety of them), that is still a problem. And keep in mind, this is not just going to affect masters - without making it over-complicated (as I already stated), it's going to affect everyone. And do you think people have the right to maybe play a variety of different games without having to ALWAYS play the same ones where they are in the top levels? And maybe get sick of a certain game - they can't take a break without being punished? And have you considered that after someone's ELO drops 90 or 120 or 150 points cause they haven't played for a few months, then that kind of screws with other players who are trying to find a compatible opponent?

And before you answer any of those questions, please keep in mind that everyone here is NOT trying to cheat. Don't punish other people just because of a few cheaters.

You have not said one thing I haven't heard before, and I can only repeat, I have yet to hear such a plan that I think would actually work and be fair, without causing problems to other people, or without being overly complicated in some way. And I've heard it on more than one site.