IMPOSSIBLE!

[bubuz]

Bonjour,

Un petit mot plein de conviction, suite à un constat des plus parlant.
J'aime bien jouer à la belote et à Koï Koï, hors il s'avère que depuis un certain temps déjà je perds assez systématiquement mes parties.
Sachant jouer et n'étant pas débile par nature, je ne puis que me poser une question:

SI ON NE PAYE PAS, PEUT-ON ESPERER GAGNER PLUS D'UNE PARTIE SUR DIX?

Du vrai foutage de gueule! Surtout à Koï Koï qui est avant tout un jeu de chance. J'ai déjà été deuxième meilleur joueur d'où une certaine maitrise du jeu et aujourd'hui, plus rien, des donnes misérables et souvent une victoire monstrueuse de l'adversaire sur la fin.

QUESTION: Les algorithmes dépendent-ils du pognon?

Cordialement.

PS: Ma compagne joue sur le même ordi que moi, est-ce une punition pour double compte éventuel? En me demandant s'il y a un réel intérêt à jouer avec soi même quand on aime le jeu...

Vous pouvez vérifier, ce n'est jamais arrivé, je joue mes parties et ma compagne les siennes.


Bref, ça commence à me gonfler, donc pognon ou pas? Veuillez éclairer ma lanterne SVP.

[sourisdudesert]

Bonjour,

Merci de jouer sur BGA ... et de rester poli.

D'abord une évidence: Koi Koi et la Belote sont des jeux en accès gratuits. Autrement dit, si il y a 10 fois plus de parties de Koi Koi, BGA ne gagne pas plus d'argent.

Ensuite: vous avez gagné 692 fois à Koi Koi sur 1387 parties jouées, soit presque 50% de victoires. Alors oui, sur 1387 parties, une mauvaise série peu arriver, et est même tout à fait probable.

Ensuite: quel intérêt aurait BGA à faire rager les joueurs en leur "faisant perdre" des séries de parties de suite ? Réponse: aucun, à part à faire fuir les joueurs. Personne n'aime perdre Notez qu'il y a des sociétés qui pratiquent même un "matchmaking adapté" (comme Blizzard par exemple) en vous faisant rencontrer des adversaires de moins en moins forts quand vous perdez de manière à alterner les victoires et les défaites. Nous on considère que c'est un peu prendre les gens pour des idiots et on ne fait pas ça: vous pouvez choisir vous même contre qui vous jouez.

Ensuite: pour "faire perdre" quelqu'un, il faudrait développer une intelligence artificielle afin de savoir quels sont les cartes les meilleures à un moment donné de la partie. Et ça c'est pas simple du tout: si ça l'était, on aurait depuis longtemps fait pleins d'IA sur BGA pour pouvoir vous apprendre les jeux contre un adversaire "bidon".

Enfin: tout cela est très facile à vérifier puisque Koi Koi et Belote ont été développé ... par des joueurs de BGA (comme indiqué sur leurs pages respectives). Si vous voulez en avoir le coeur net, je vous invite à contacter ces joueurs qui vous expliquerons ni plus ni moins qu'il n'ont pas rajouté dans le code de ces jeux quelque chose destiné à vous faire perdre.

Conclusion: BGA n'a aucun intérêt, ni en terme d'audience, ni en terme financier, à vous faire perdre. Les jeux dont vous parlez sont soumis au hasard, et des séries importantes de défaites sont statistiquement probables vu le nombre de parties jouées. Vous pouvez par ailleurs vérifier par vous même ces informations auprès des développeurs des joueurs concernés.

Merci de jouer sur BGA.

[Jest Phulin]

There have been rants before about "players who aren't paying members don't win as much because of luck, the programming is set against them." You might want to look at those. Most of the people who write those posts end up being banned from the site. Not because they question the programming, but because they violate the policy of polite speech.

Now, if you do believe that the code actually is against you, please provide some proof. A large enough sampling of games between two non-members, two members, and one member vs one non-member that shows the bias.

Next, have a clear understanding of probability and randomness. Tossing a coin and having it land heads five times in a row is uncommon, but if you toss that coin 100 times it should have about 3 streaks of 5 heads in a row.

Then, have a clear understanding of bias of perception. A footballer launches a ball from the top of the penalty area and it hits the goal post and bounces out. If this is a rising star, they "just missed." If it is a top player who is in a slump, they "can't buy a goal." Same shot, different perceptions.

And also, have a clear understanding of the difference between correlation and causality. Yes, it may be true that several top players in a game of luck are members. That is a correlation. However, it is likely that people who are highly ranked enjoy the game and want to play more, and people who want to play more want the site supported, and people who want the site supported are members.


So, bottom line. Please provide some more evidence than "I hate that I don't seem to win."




---------
Een, Sourisdudesert, sorry if I'm feeding a troll. They've had their account for a while.

[bubuz]

Okay, I got what you're saying.

This said, this is not the heart of my thought...

But just to speak of Koï Koï, explain to me how i got from second player to almost last because of chronic badluck.

I love this site, it is wonderful in my eyes and i thank you for all this work!

Statistically, losing and winning in the long run, I agree.

But lose almost systematically since the monetization of the site, I don't understand!

Put you in my place, people cheat?

Warmly.

[Jest Phulin]

Your ranking on this game:
https://en.boardgamearena.com/#!players ... 44&game=61

The beginning of the chart shows wild swings in ELO, going from over 300 down to about 125 and back within a very short time. Then, a long period of what appears to be inactivity, and then your steady decline. It may be that you lost some of the skill to recognize what is a good play and what isn't. If the game is purely a game of chance, then your 693 wins out of 1390 games indicates that there is no bias.

As far as "since the monetization of the site," I have been a member for longer than you have had an account. In other words, the site has been taking in money for longer than you have had an account. Therefore, if a change was made when they started taking in money, you would have never experienced the previous method.

[bubuz]

Bon ben, désolé les gars mais si on reste factuel, la situation est critique...

[Yorgad]

Non, elle est aléatoire.

[Liallan]

Something else that I think may be relevant, though I'm not sure how much impact it has, is that right towards the beginning of 2017 is when they changed the ELO system. At that point, all ELO's were dropped 1300. That really didn't work very well and I never thought the new ELO's that resulted from that change were correct or always made a lot of sense. So it would take quite a few games to kind of equalize and find where the new ELO would end up, but you can't really relate it to the old ELO.

For instance, an old ELO might say you were 350 on some date. But that means you were 1650 in the old system, NOT that you were 350 in the new system, despite all the old numbers being adjusted. Those numbers don't relate, and "good" and "strong" and all that stuff doesn't compare either.

I noticed certain games where my ELO has gone down since that change, and I don't believe it has anything to do with my abilities or the system favoring paying members, etc. I think it has everything to do with the new system having to settle itself. I still have a lot of bad ELO numbers (by "bad" I mean "not correct"), because I don't play that many games and a lot of them have never settled into the new system.

So as far as I'm concerned, all your numbers prior to that point mean nothing in this new system, and can only really be compared with themselves. And the numbers right after the change I don't think you can compare with anything at all because that was an adjustment period.

You have not taken this into consideration, and you seemingly have no idea when paid memberships started (I've been here since 2014 and that already existed), so it sounds a bit like you are trying to make claims with a lack of knowledge.