Expand 0 point wins to stop predatory gaming

[Ceaseless]

I don't know what the exact numbers should be, whether it's something like a 200-250 point rating gap, or just taking the current rating system and saying anything only worth 1-2 points should just be dropped to 0, but players shouldn't be racking up points for pummeling players substantially worse than them to an absurd degree. You shouldn't say, have a 500 player beating up sub 100s to gain 1 point at a time in order to rating climb. There are several games where the rating loss is not going to be able to accurately reflect the true chances such a player has, where the higher rated player can win dozens of games in a row without issue vs players a few hundred points below them. A player in this game can grind on the ladder, dodging players of anything resembling a real challenge in order to obliterate the low level pool. This makes it annoying for players who get paired vs this person, either for constant cancels or for the low rated players who end up facing such players and get stomped. If you're facing someone with this kind of rating gap, this shouldn't be a "looking for points" scenario.

I could see a case for making such games 0 gain/loss for the higher rated player in such a gap to let high rated players just looking for games to accept whoever and not have to worry about the outcome at all vs newer players. This lets them get in games and allows them more leeway to make the experience enjoyable for the weaker player without having to worry about losing a ton of points for a loss. But the main idea is to stop higher rated players from predatory gaming.

[Blacktango]

I’m not sure what you are talking about, but everyone can filter the level of the players they want to play against.

[Ceaseless]

I’m not sure what you are talking about, but everyone can filter the level of the players they want to play against.

Say a 500 plays vs 200 players at 150 rating or lower. My suggestion is they gain 0 points per win instead of say, 1.

[Strode]

If you can beat a 150 rated player every time, you deserve a strong rating. Upsets happen, and it's a sign of skill to never lose to someone rated a few hundred points lower than you.

And if you lose to someone that much lower, you lose a lot of points (not sure how many). If a 500-rated player plays 20 games against 150-rated players, they may have to win all of them in order to improve their rating. Again, hard to do, especially when some of the lower-rated players are stronger than their rating (maybe they're new to BGA but have played the game IRL a lot).

In Chess at least, a 400 Elo equates to 90% success rate (I'm pretty sure). If I only want to play people 400 points lower, I can't afford to lose often.

Now, I do think if you're rated 500, it's chicken to only play weakies. But often those are just who is looking for a game.

[Ceaseless]

If you can beat a 150 rated player every time, you deserve a strong rating. Upsets happen, and it's a sign of skill to never lose to someone rated a few hundred points lower than you.

And if you lose to someone that much lower, you lose a lot of points (not sure how many). If a 500-rated player plays 20 games against 150-rated players, they may have to win all of them in order to improve their rating. Again, hard to do, especially when some of the lower-rated players are stronger than their rating (maybe they're new to BGA but have played the game IRL a lot).

In Chess at least, a 400 Elo equates to 90% success rate (I'm pretty sure). If I only want to play people 400 points lower, I can't afford to lose often.

Now, I do think if you're rated 500, it's chicken to only play weakies. But often those are just who is looking for a game.

If you can defeat a 150 player every time, you deserve a strong rating, to a point. For a 200-300, it's impressive. For a 500, much less so, and as the rating goes up, it gets less and less impressive. You might get the occasional upset, but you can take the hit and keep going. You definitely cannot afford to lose often during your climbing streak, but when you keep facing weak players, this is not as problematic as you might think, especially if you play ones you're familiar with to avoid newcomers that might surprise you. (There are often low skill veterans who have played hundreds, if not thousands of times with little improvement, these exist as easy targets for players so inclined.)

If you're aiming for say, the 500s, you should be capable of beating a 300 rated player, for instance, not just a 150 or lower every game. A player shouldn't say, be training to make strategies that always work but only vs significantly worse opposition in order to ignore anyone near their playing level.

Now, I do think if you're rated 500, it's chicken to only play weakies. But often those are just who is looking for a game.

Some players are just looking for a game, and I have nothing against that. I don't think the different between 0 or 1 point should be relevant to someone like that. They wanted a game, they got one, and the rating difference is minimal for them. These sorts of things only matter for someone trying to ladder their rating up with these 1 point victories, not someone just trying to play.

Though as I note in my original post, I'm also ok with making it that far higher rated player does not win or lose points for the game, so that they do not have to worry about the outcome at all, which can let them not have to worry about mopping the floor with their far lower rated opposition and perhaps more on making things more engaging for them. Because if I'm a 500 facing say, a 30 point player, this should not be about rating for me.

[Blacktango]

IMO, the ELO system on BGA should not be considerate as a ladder, so trying to reach "the top" makes no sense.

This system tries to get players to meet other players of their skill level, and then to provide more interesting games.
If you want a ladder, play the Arena mode.

[ufm]

FYI ELO gain can drop below 1 if the gap is too high.

[thoun]

IMO, the ELO system on BGA should not be considerate as a ladder, so trying to reach "the top" makes no sense.

This system tries to get players to meet other players of their skill level, and then to provide more interesting games.
If you want a ladder, play the Arena mode.

I agree, real competitors will go on Arena mode and try to be top 1 Elite, and competition will be more interesting in Arena than playing simple games, where some players don't care about the competitive side.

[Ceaseless]

IMO, the ELO system on BGA should not be considerate as a ladder, so trying to reach "the top" makes no sense.

This system tries to get players to meet other players of their skill level, and then to provide more interesting games.
If you want a ladder, play the Arena mode.

In your opinion, perhaps, though I find there are players who do not seem to see it that way. One type of player I've run into a few times is one that will keep cancelling over and over vs anyone near their rating. It's very annoying, especially if you and them are the only two around in that game for a bit, so it keeps recancelling, etc. It's not a personal issue, they don't block you, etc. and when you check their game record you'll see them only facing players with a fraction of their rating, I mean literally half, third, a tenth, etc. A 500 facing a 25 point player, etc. and never going above say, 200s or so. losing the incentive of points will hopefully encourage these players to just play their range normally and not keep cancelling over and over.

FYI ELO gain can drop below 1 if the gap is too high.

I've seen those, yeah. I'm saying that gap to cause it should shrink, and the ELO gain should just be a flat 0. Get rid of rating incentives for specifically targeting people far below you in level that you can always beat, while anyone just doing it because they want a game will be unaffected. That way the absurd rating gaps happen less, and when they do happen, the lower rated player won't be facing someone doing it to farm them, but someone who just wants to get a game in.

[ufm]

One type of player I've run into a few times is one that will keep cancelling over and over vs anyone near their rating.

Actually players can block higher-rated players from joining their game by setting the restrictions in the lobby...