Table filter for experienced players

[Gooorn]

I know that many times was suggested here a table filter for number of played games, but seems BGA doesn't want to implement it, so i try to suggest same thing in a different way:
Use game trophies/awards as table filter!
We have 100-200.. played games award, we have 10-20-50... won games award on each game, so why not use them as filter for experienced players?

[Meeplelowda]

I know that many times was suggested here a table filter for number of played games, but seems BGA doesn't want to implement it, so i try to suggest same thing in a different way:
Use game trophies/awards as table filter!
We have 100-200.. played games award, we have 10-20-50... won games award on each game, so why not use them as filter for experienced players?

With table creation set to manual, under "Restrict Table Access" you can already filter by:
Beginners (first game)
Apprentices (ELO 1 to 99)
Average players (ELO 100 to 199)
Good players (etc.)
Strong players
Experts
Masters

Why isn't filtering by ELO basically what you're asking for?

[Gooorn]

[/quote]
Why isn't filtering by ELO basically what you're asking for?
[/quote]

ELO-system does not refer to game experience as you can reach average level after 1-2 lucky game, and not works at all in cooperative and high luck-factor games.

[Meeplelowda]

ELO-system does not refer to game experience as you can reach average level after 1-2 lucky game, and not works at all in cooperative and high luck-factor games.

Or you could have played the game hundreds of times outside of BGA and reach average because of that experience despite having a low game count.

But point taken regarding coop games.

[FSKFSK]

The only thing it lets you filter for is CURRENT elo ranking. Some games have a really high luck factor, where you can go on a losing streak from having a top 20 ELO all the way down to 100 elo.

There also should be a filter for "highest elo attained" rather than current elo.

[duckfandad]

What if the K-Factor on High-Luck and Cooperative games was kept artificially low? Any wins and losses would have only a minor impact on ELO. Then experience awards could be tied to arbitrary boosts in ELO score.

This ELO would better reflect the all important experience for HL and COOP games and could be used as an accurate table filter.

Then newbies with low ELOs can gain experience among themselves and by watching experienced tables. While experienced players can be assured that the limited amount of strategy available to them is not lost to the relatively random moves of a novice. COOP games are, of course, particularly sensitive to imprecise decisions.

[Gooorn]

We can talk about how to make ELO-system better, but i don't think that possible to create an accurate ranking-system in most of board games.
ELO might works in low-luck factor duel games (like chess) but gets less relevant as luck-factor or number of players raise.
Number of played or won games refers more to game experience.

Just a funny story: As beginner in Schrödinger's Cats i reached TOP20 after 5-6 games, while i barely knew game rules.