Arena scoring question

[frogstar_A]

So, the more I think about it, the more the current system makes sense to me. You should absolutely gain less/lose more if you play against someone who is way behind you in the standings.

Case in point: I made my way to the top 5 in wingspan this season on the strength of a win streak of games that I had started when I was silver and gold so many of them were bronze and silver players. Then, once I got to elite, I started getting more games against better players. But your win rate against another good player is nowhere near as good as against a weak one. So, even if you only get 8 points or so vs a weak player, your paths to victory are so much more. You can more likely overcome a bad starting hand if your opponent doesn't know how to take advantage of their better start. Things like that. If you just need to get to 80 instead of need to get to the 90s to win...

So, if anything, you should get even LESS points for beating a lower ranked player.

Recently I played the #2 player and received 16pts. We are both elite and top of the field. We also only started 60pts away from each other. If he won he would've received 24pts. 150% what I got. This isn't normal standards for any competitive competition. There are favorites in every competition but if the underdogs want to win the competition they have to win fair and square w/o a boost. To the people saying I am playing inferior competition (kids at the park) that isn't the case. Because of this weighted system I won head to head match ups against top 3 players but lost overall arena pts. I beat a top 10 player 3x more than they beat me and lost arena pts. I beat the number 2 player 5 matches more and only gained 14pts when the net for 1 victory should be 20pts.

Although you say "only" 60 points away isn't 60 points quite a lot?

[dschingis27]

So, the more I think about it, the more the current system makes sense to me. You should absolutely gain less/lose more if you play against someone who is way behind you in the standings.

Case in point: I made my way to the top 5 in wingspan this season on the strength of a win streak of games that I had started when I was silver and gold so many of them were bronze and silver players. Then, once I got to elite, I started getting more games against better players. But your win rate against another good player is nowhere near as good as against a weak one. So, even if you only get 8 points or so vs a weak player, your paths to victory are so much more. You can more likely overcome a bad starting hand if your opponent doesn't know how to take advantage of their better start. Things like that. If you just need to get to 80 instead of need to get to the 90s to win...

So, if anything, you should get even LESS points for beating a lower ranked player.

Recently I played the #2 player and received 16pts. We are both elite and top of the field. We also only started 60pts away from each other. If he won he would've received 24pts. 150% what I got. This isn't normal standards for any competitive competition. There are favorites in every competition but if the underdogs want to win the competition they have to win fair and square w/o a boost. To the people saying I am playing inferior competition (kids at the park) that isn't the case. Because of this weighted system I won head to head match ups against top 3 players but lost overall arena pts. I beat a top 10 player 3x more than they beat me and lost arena pts. I beat the number 2 player 5 matches more and only gained 14pts when the net for 1 victory should be 20pts.

The whole point of the current system is to not allow an advantage by just playing more games and to not allow a run-away at the top so that the competition stays interesting. Your suggestion does not fit these goals.

The whole problem could be mitigated with adjusted K factors. Maybe we could go in the direction that high-ranked players, say you are in Top20 or above 1700 or whatever, these players have smaller K factors. I am convinced that most top players would like that, most are annoyed by the rapid change in rank that single games do to you. No one enjoys falling from 5th place to 30th place in 2 games. Most players in the top ranks would prefer smaller rank change by game. I am absolutely convinced that most top players play Arena despite the current system and not because of the current system.

I can see why the rapid rank change per game might be enjoyable for the players behind the top players, say, in the Arena ranks between 50th place and 200th place. It is exciting and motivating that you can climb the ladder rather quickly. But at the same time, the system is torturing the top players who want to have a real competition.

[ChiefPointThief]

So, the more I think about it, the more the current system makes sense to me. You should absolutely gain less/lose more if you play against someone who is way behind you in the standings.

Case in point: I made my way to the top 5 in wingspan this season on the strength of a win streak of games that I had started when I was silver and gold so many of them were bronze and silver players. Then, once I got to elite, I started getting more games against better players. But your win rate against another good player is nowhere near as good as against a weak one. So, even if you only get 8 points or so vs a weak player, your paths to victory are so much more. You can more likely overcome a bad starting hand if your opponent doesn't know how to take advantage of their better start. Things like that. If you just need to get to 80 instead of need to get to the 90s to win...

So, if anything, you should get even LESS points for beating a lower ranked player.

Recently I played the #2 player and received 16pts. We are both elite and top of the field. We also only started 60pts away from each other. If he won he would've received 24pts. 150% what I got. This isn't normal standards for any competitive competition. There are favorites in every competition but if the underdogs want to win the competition they have to win fair and square w/o a boost. To the people saying I am playing inferior competition (kids at the park) that isn't the case. Because of this weighted system I won head to head match ups against top 3 players but lost overall arena pts. I beat a top 10 player 3x more than they beat me and lost arena pts. I beat the number 2 player 5 matches more and only gained 14pts when the net for 1 victory should be 20pts.

The whole point of the current system is to not allow an advantage by just playing more games and to not allow a run-away at the top so that the competition stays interesting. Your suggestion does not fit these goals.

The whole problem could be mitigated with adjusted K factors. Maybe we could go in the direction that high-ranked players, say you are in Top20 or above 1700 or whatever, these players have smaller K factors. I am convinced that most top players would like that, most are annoyed by the rapid change in rank that single games do to you. No one enjoys falling from 5th place to 30th place in 2 games. Most players in the top ranks would prefer smaller rank change by game. I am absolutely convinced that most top players play Arena despite the current system and not because of the current system.

I can see why the rapid rank change per game might be enjoyable for the players behind the top players, say, in the Arena ranks between 50th place and 200th place. It is exciting and motivating that you can climb the ladder rather quickly. But at the same time, the system is torturing the top players who want to have a real competition.

Imo it shouldn’t be marketed as competitive mode if there are other factors at play like keeping the majority of players engaged rather than a straight competition. I think the qualifications for “elite” should be raised or there should be a “super elite” division where all players are just equal in that division. I also wouldn’t mind caps on # of games played if that is the sole argument behind having an unbalanced system.

[RobertBr]

The whole problem could be mitigated with adjusted K factors. Maybe we could go in the direction that high-ranked players, say you are in Top20 or above 1700 or whatever, these players have smaller K factors.

You could also reduce K factor over time. Have a high K factor before players reach elite and then once they hit elite gradually reduce the K factor with each game.

[dschingis27]

@ChiefPointThief. BGA is a commercial website, so of course keeping the majority of players engaged will always be a main concern. It is not a non-profit body to lead us into an age of competitive boardgaming. Fortunately it is a very good tool to have self-organized competitions. But I agree that the marketing for Arena mode is misleading.

@RobertBr. Your suggestion makes some sense from a competitive/scientific viewpoint. But I think it would drastically reduce motivation to play after some time, particularly for the players in the ranks behind the very top players.

[mturton]

A simpler system with guaranteed advances would result in more players joining Arena. I stopped playing after having all my stars wiped out and falling to the beginning. Confronting the long grind simply to regain my prior spot, I stopped playing Arena completely. I will never play anything that stupid again. If I wanted a long dull grind I would go back to playing World of Warships. I doubt I'm the only one to have made that decision.

That is not a good decision for the site or for other players. If every win was one point and every loss was zero, and there was a fixed number of points to get to the next level, more players would join because sooner or later they would accumulate enough wins to advance. Players could then be rated on their overall win rate or how many games it took them to reach each level, which would enable the website to sort the players into rankings.

This would remove the possibility that players would fall back to their beginning levels and be forced to regrind many games just to return to where they had been. Forced grinding is a really bad idea on a website on which players are supposed to enjoy their experience and socialize with others, but that's what arena is. I do not understand why it is so punitive, or why the site administrators have not after repeated complaints fixed this issue to encourage people to join arena.

[detlefchef11]

A simpler system with guaranteed advances would result in more players joining Arena. I stopped playing after having all my stars wiped out and falling to the beginning. Confronting the long grind simply to regain my prior spot, I stopped playing Arena completely. I will never play anything that stupid again. If I wanted a long dull grind I would go back to playing World of Warships. I doubt I'm the only one to have made that decision.

That is not a good decision for the site or for other players. If every win was one point and every loss was zero, and there was a fixed number of points to get to the next level, more players would join because sooner or later they would accumulate enough wins to advance. Players could then be rated on their overall win rate or how many games it took them to reach each level, which would enable the website to sort the players into rankings.

This would remove the possibility that players would fall back to their beginning levels and be forced to regrind many games just to return to where they had been. Forced grinding is a really bad idea on a website on which players are supposed to enjoy their experience and socialize with others, but that's what arena is. I do not understand why it is so punitive, or why the site administrators have not after repeated complaints fixed this issue to encourage people to join arena.

But it's a season. The Super Bowl champion starts off the next season at 0-0 just like the team that finished with the worst record. Also, as I mentioned above, it is already a system that makes it very profitable to get fat on lower level players. Making "a win a win" regardless of who it's against, would just make it more so.

[shinuito]

I am absolutely convinced that most top players play Arena despite the current system and not because of the current system.

That's possibly true.

I think if you compare the current arena to other things it could be, in no particular order:

- Pure Elo no bronze, silver elite leagues etc.

- Pure League system, with arbitrarily high leagues or a cap on number of leagues.

- A kind of ladder system, where you move up if you beat someone in the rung of the ladder or higher, and sort players within a rung by who has played most recently.

- A pure ladder system where you take the place of the player (or I dunno highest player you beat) if it's higher than yours.


What is the current system doing better?

If you just want to sort people by skill, doesn't an Elo or Glicko system do that, then reset it every few months.

If you don't want runaway leads, a pure rating system should make it a gamble to lose against lower ranked players for little reward. A ladder system, depending on how it's implemented might even cap how far you can get ahead, and maybe in the case with maybe people on one rung, sorting by activity (last completed game) incentivises you to play if you want to stay ahead of the people on your rung.

There's also variations where maybe you're only able to play vs players one league higher or lower for instance in some pure league systems. This would stop say the top player being matched with another top player who just joined the league late, and so could absolutely demolish their elite rating in the current system while they rank up, another reason not to play once you reach the top.

What are the merits of the current system over any other system? It has features of a few different ones, but it's not clear, with the way pairing works, that there's the benefits of each system without the flaws.

[dschingis27]

I see a lot of problems in your suggestions. There is not enough space here to go into that.

I particularly wouldn't like a system where you are forced to stay active to not fall off in the ranks. Such a system also doesn't fit with turn-based games.

[ChiefPointThief]

Is a persons league considered in arena calculations? Ex. If I am elite and beat another elite player w/ a 1560 score do I get the same pts as beating a bronze player w/ a hidden 1560 score?