Arena scoring question

[ChiefPointThief]

Who would have thunk you need more that 50% winrate to gain elo? *insert surprised pikachu face*

I know this was an attempt to be funny but actually you don't need more than 50% winrate to gain elo. Which is part of the discussion as to why the current system isn't good.

[ChiefPointThief]

More arena stats

Player A is 47-27 this arena season.
Player B is 9-9
Player A beat Player B 5 out of 8 games
Player A has less arena pts than Player B. Can people who think the system is working as it should explain this to me?

[Jellby]

Player A has generally beaten lower-ranked players. Player B has generally beaten higher-ranked players.

[ChiefPointThief]

Player A has generally beaten lower-ranked players. Player B has generally beaten higher-ranked players.

Player a has 5x more victories and only 3x more losses. (13.5% better win rate). Player a beat player b 5-3 (62.5%) in head to head matches and player b is considered stronger.

Player a has 15 matches against top 10 opponents (8-7) 53%
Player b has 3 matches against top 10 opponents (1-2) 33%

Strength of schedule, # of games, head to head match up, and win % are all in favor of player a but they are losing the competition to player b.

[buu441]

Sounds like skill issue to me.

[Ceaseless]

Who would have thunk you need more that 50% winrate to gain elo? *insert surprised pikachu face*

I know this was an attempt to be funny but actually you don't need more than 50% winrate to gain elo. Which is part of the discussion as to why the current system isn't good.

I actually do not see an issue with that by itself. The level of opposition matters too, and at lower ratings rising shouldn't be an issue.

[Ceaseless]

More arena stats

Player A is 47-27 this arena season.
Player B is 9-9
Player A beat Player B 5 out of 8 games
Player A has less arena pts than Player B. Can people who think the system is working as it should explain this to me?

Game in question?

Potential reasons that come to mind offhand without any context.
1. Player B faced better opposition for their rating than Player A.
2. K factor, early games score more as the system gets an initial feel for you without a bunch of empty grinding at the lowest of ratings.
3. Player A had a losing streak at the end and has plummeted recently, leaving them underrated, but able to correct the issue with more games.

[ChiefPointThief]

2. K factor, early games score more as the system gets an initial feel for you without a bunch of empty grinding at the lowest of ratings.

Player a record after first 18 games 13-5 - Player b only played 18 games 9-9

3. Player A had a losing streak at the end and has plummeted recently, leaving them underrated, but able to correct the issue with more games.

Can you explain to me how someone can be underrated in a good system that is working like it is supposed to? Can you explain to me how a system is good if you can play a multitude of games (in this case over 70) and consistently win at a way higher rate than another player but have your score "plummet" below theirs because of a couple of bad games?

[Ceaseless]

2. K factor, early games score more as the system gets an initial feel for you without a bunch of empty grinding at the lowest of ratings.

Player a record after first 18 games 13-5 - Player b only played 18 games 9-9

3. Player A had a losing streak at the end and has plummeted recently, leaving them underrated, but able to correct the issue with more games.

Can you explain to me how someone can be underrated in a good system that is working like it is supposed to? Can you explain to me how a system is good if you can play a multitude of games (in this case over 70) and consistently win at a way higher rate than another player but have your score "plummet" below theirs because of a couple of bad games?

Again, show me where this happened, lol. I gave one potential reason a rating would be a bit low going into this blind, I have no idea if it is this or something else. And yes, it happens, ratings fall within a variation, and if someone has an underperforming period of time their rating will reflect that. That's not unusual in games, BGA or otherwise.

[ChiefPointThief]

2. K factor, early games score more as the system gets an initial feel for you without a bunch of empty grinding at the lowest of ratings.

Player a record after first 18 games 13-5 - Player b only played 18 games 9-9

3. Player A had a losing streak at the end and has plummeted recently, leaving them underrated, but able to correct the issue with more games.

Can you explain to me how someone can be underrated in a good system that is working like it is supposed to? Can you explain to me how a system is good if you can play a multitude of games (in this case over 70) and consistently win at a way higher rate than another player but have your score "plummet" below theirs because of a couple of bad games?

Again, show me where this happened, lol. I gave one potential reason a rating would be a bit low going into this blind, I have no idea if it is this or something else. And yes, it happens, ratings fall within a variation, and if someone has an underperforming period of time their rating will reflect that. That's not unusual in games, BGA or otherwise.

Shouldn’t their rating properly reflect when they are doing good? That is part of the problem. Like when I say last season I beat #3 in our head to head and lost pts and #2 5 games more and only gained 14pts. If I was awarded proper pts like I should’ve for all my quality wins my score wouldn’t “plummet” out of 1st place because of a few losses.

That also ties into your conclusion of “play some games and get your score back”. If a player unjustifiably passes you because of the system and stops playing you can’t get your pts back from them. It can be late in the season. You could be a turn based player etc. But like mentioned earlier the “competitive” system is designed to make everyone feel like they have a chance. So a 7-9 player (player b) can surpass a player who is 47-25 (player a) w/ a couple wins.

I wouldn’t say you are blind. I gave you several statistics over 3 posts for this scenario. If you haven’t figured out I’m player a These latest stats were brought to you courtesy of my current tic tac arena season.

Can you answer this question w/ a simple yes or no? Should player a who played and won a higher percentage of matches against tougher opponents, has a way higher win rate, wins their head to head match up with player b, and proved consistency by doing this in over 4x more games, lose a “competitive” competition to player b because player a lost a couple of games at the end?