Race for the Galaxy ranking is frustrating

[Vezvarton]

I have been trying to eke my way up to 1600 (Good) for a couple weeks. A large percentage of games are for Good or higher only, so it's hard to find games. Then, even when you do have a series of wins, you are getting 9-15 points typically per win, but may well lose double that per loss (there are exceptions, yes, but those are the trends). I don't know if the system takes into account how high your individual score was, but I doubt it, and it's a shame because why should you lose as many points for a strong, very close finish as for a puny one? And all of this is topped off with a nice dollop of special sauce in how much luck is involved in the game. E.g., if you don't get the right 6-point developments or consume-ability engine cards, and a player of roughly equal skill does, you will lose, period. You might as well have the rankings be Unlucky, Middlin' Luck, Lucky, etc.

I know I'm a strong game player. Go ahead, laugh, but I'm 50 and I've been playing table games, CCG's, and online games for 35 years. Sure, I'm frustrated and have got ego on the line. But the rankings aren't FUN. They are contributing negative FUN-ness to an otherwise great game, and games, even competitive ones, should be FUN, at least in any format for semi-casual play like BGA provides. I've seen this issue bandied around in these forums since months ago, and maybe this issue has been talked to death, I don't know. But the ranking for RFTG *is* problematic. I'm just sayin', is all....

[clorox]

Can You start the table with no ELO settings and play just for FUN? ...... nope

[Issity]

If I understand correctly how ELO works - the difference of ELO between you and your opponents matter when determining how much ELO is gain/lost. Game score is irrelevant, only who won and who lost.

If you win with low (especialy lower than yours) ELO player your ELO gain is small.
If you win with high (especialy higher than yours) ELO player than your ELO gain is bigger.

It's the same when you lose. So if you lose to low ELO player you will lose more ELO points.

If your problem are table restriction the solution is easy - create your own table. You should not wait long for an opponent. If you create table you can set your own restrictions despite your rank (of course you will have less potential opponents available then).

[Oso]

Play with players with more ELO points than you

If you're +30 player game you gain a 20 ELO points per victory, but...

- If your opponent have -20 ELO points than you, you lost 1 point, then you just gain 19 points... (-40 ELO points than you, win 18 ELO; -60 ELO points, win 17 ELO points...)
- If your opponent have +20 ELO points than you, you win 1 point, then you gain 21 points... (+40 ELO points than you, win 22 points; +60 ELO points, win 23 ELO points...)

This calc is only in 2 players game.

[thekid]

I
I know I'm a strong game player. Go ahead, laugh, .

Ha Ha, well you said to. But take a look at the games here and the top 3 ratings for each game. This game is second in combined top 3 just behind Stone Age. That means the game doesn't have that much luck. The top rating is over 2200 and you're in the 1400's. Sorry but that isn't good.

[Vezvarton]

Can You start the table with no ELO settings and play just for FUN? ...... nope

This is actually a reasonable suggestion; I had assumed the majority were looking for ELO games but recently I've seen more non-ELO ones.

Game score is irrelevant, only who won and who lost.

This is perhaps the biggest flaw in the current scheme in my opinion. It contributes both to lack of mobility on the ELO ladder and to the hesitancy some higher ranking players have to play lower ranked players.

Play with players with more ELO points than you

I typically try but, again, many higher ranked players only want to play players at or above their rank. So the choices are fewer (although by no means completely absent). So, in that sense, the ranking scheme creates a pressure that helps keep lower ranked players low, because they get fewer opportunities to move up and losses are that much more telling. Of course, very highly ranked players find it hard to move too, but I think that players at good ranking are much better off in terms of mobility than those below because they have more games available with higher ELO players and this helps in time spent and thus in evening out luck factors.

That means the game doesn't have that much luck.

I would strongly contest this claim. The thing about RFTG is that the games are short. This means many games can be played and this creates a large statistical pool; over time, this creates a situation that appears to have relatively normal distribution. However, my contention is that movement within that pool at lower levels is hampered by the ELO scheme. I never claimed the game doesn't reward skill; of course it does. But the luck factor combines with the fact that people are afraid of being pushed down the ladder by losing to a lower ranked player and with the fact that the skill within a game isn't rewarded (in terms of high scores or ties broken by number of cards). This creates the sluggish and frustrating ELO movement patterns in the lower ranks. In any case, if you'd like to play 10 games with me, you can see for yourself how good I am; I think you will be (un?)pleasantly surprised. Until then, saying I'm no good because the ELO numbers say so when I'm claiming that those numbers are themselves biased is neither a helpful nor a convincing response to my way of thinking.

[Jirikki]

Because of the luck element no one wants to play people with ELO far below their own so they are going to set a minimum of 1600 usually. Everyone wants to play someone of a higher ELO but someone is going to have to relent and play someone at a lower ELO. Tournaments are usually how you get a chance to play someone at a higher ELO.

[fastfast]

Elo race is specificaly designed to reward good players, players who can beat higher ranked players than they are, and is easily the most "fair" system of ranking ever.
RFTG have some luck Inside, true, but it's a very small part, my guess would be 20/25%. And this luck part only matters when playing with someone of your strength, otherwise, you can just win all the same.

I've been grinding for 1800+ for a week, i always play with everybody, even people with 300+ elo points less than I have, and I'm always lurking between 1500 and 1750 elo points. What does that means ? Tha my level is roughly 1625, soemtimes higner, sometimes lower, but I'm not good enough to reach 1800+ for the moment.

So, I won't laugh, but if you stay at 1400, then... you are no better than 1400

P.S. I'm 40, got kids and work, been playing board games for the last 30 years, and roleplaying games, and videogames, and card games (bridge, poker..), and serious games (chess, go...), and....... I'm not Worth 1800+ elo points at RFTG, but I still can sleep well at night )

[Cunning]

It's quite possible to play games whatever your rating is, so the 'i want to play' instinct is well satisfied, which is surely the primary point of the site.
Adding ELO adds an element of interest. For those of us who enjoy tracking our rating, there is an added challenge attached to the games. If you want to improve your rating, you will have to win a lot of games! If you don't care about your rating, then go ahead and play - that's what the site is here for
Like fastfast I am 40, kids, years of experience. last week I was 3 games from master. Right now I am cruising in Mid-good, having lost 300 points in a short time. Am I complaining about this? Damn right, but only in fun! I enjoy the rating side of things, and am focusing more on the games to try to bring that 1950 back. It might take some time...
Edit: I dropped all the way down to average shortly after this, but have climbed back to high 1800s now, 3 weeks later.
To the original poster: I just lost 400 points, then gained most of them back, starting from average rating. I guess my example shows it's totally possible, just win more games than you lose....

[jdietz]

A modification to the system should be added.

Any day a player in the top 10 doesn't play a game, their ELO suffers a -10 penalty. Even if they play and lose, they don't suffer this penalty. They have to play for ELO for their game to count.
Also, players in the top five must play two games. If they don't, their ELO suffers -10 for each game they don't play.

There are a bunch of different systems that can be implemented, for example, good players must play 1 game per day, experts 2 games, and masters 3 games (average players don't ever lose ELO).

If top ranked players can't win, they don't deserve to be top ranked.

This is appropriate for fast games like Race for the Galaxy. Change everything above to "per week" for longer games like Tsolkin.