Arena scoring question

[Ceaseless]

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



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?

No, their rating does not give them magical powers. Their rating properly reflects how they are doing, it will not just wave a wand and make them do well. If they are doing poorly their rating will reflect that. If their quality of gameplay is changing, it will reflect that as well.

Because I don't make assumptions on who it has to be. I could easily see someone observing something from other players and using that. I looked at you and a player you went 5-4 with over 9 games, (NoNameKid), to pick someone close to the record you stated and an arena rating that would seem relevant. https://boardgamearena.com/gamestats?pl ... ateStats=1 In your head to heads you took the first game, they took 3 off you over a couple days, and then you took 4 off them a few days later. You've gained 91 points and lost 53 points for a total net gain of 38 points. As of your last game vs them, you were 1642 and they were 1577. Since then both of you played several Arena games after that, you've gone 29-16 they've got 13-2. You're now at 1577, and them 1682 as of the last time I looked, you seem to be playing as I type this, but I'm not doing instant updates, lol. After your head to heads they performed better than you from playing other people. I found these by checking the game history (if there is a way to filter arena games that would be nice to know, I just manually sorted through it.)

You don't have to play the same person to get your points back, you can play other people.

I don't see any games between you and Neronas7. https://boardgamearena.com/halloffame?g ... &season=12 The arena #3 of the past season. As for giving me statistics, no you've mentioned numbers but never linked to where they came from for others to check your claims for specifics. I haven't found the player you're referring to yet.

If a player managed to lose so much rating to drop behind them despite these hypothetical advantages, then I suspect there is something that isn't being mentioned about the circumstances to change the question from how it initially seems, such as cherrypicked data and missing context and would want to see that first before making a blanket yes/no statement over something like that, as the missing information the asker hasn't given could be very telling. Answering a potentially loaded question with a yes/no is rarely productive.

[ChiefPointThief]

No, their rating does not give them magical powers. Their rating properly reflects how they are doing, it will not just wave a wand and make them do well. If they are doing poorly their rating will reflect that. If their quality of gameplay is changing, it will reflect that as well.

Because I don't make assumptions on who it has to be. I could easily see someone observing something from other players and using that. I looked at you and a player you went 5-4 with over 9 games, (NoNameKid), to pick someone close to the record you stated and an arena rating that would seem relevant. https://boardgamearena.com/gamestats?pl ... ateStats=1 In your head to heads you took the first game, they took 3 off you over a couple days, and then you took 4 off them a few days later. You've gained 91 points and lost 53 points for a total net gain of 38 points. As of your last game vs them, you were 1642 and they were 1577. Since then both of you played several Arena games after that, you've gone 29-16 they've got 13-2. You're now at 1577, and them 1682 as of the last time I looked, you seem to be playing as I type this, but I'm not doing instant updates, lol. After your head to heads they performed better than you from playing other people. I found these by checking the game history (if there is a way to filter arena games that would be nice to know, I just manually sorted through it.)

You don't have to play the same person to get your points back, you can play other people.

I don't see any games between you and Neronas7. https://boardgamearena.com/halloffame?g ... &season=12 The arena #3 of the past season. As for giving me statistics, no you've mentioned numbers but never linked to where they came from for others to check your claims for specifics. I haven't found the player you're referring to yet.

If a player managed to lose so much rating to drop behind them despite these hypothetical advantages, then I suspect there is something that isn't being mentioned about the circumstances to change the question from how it initially seems, such as cherrypicked data and missing context and would want to see that first before making a blanket yes/no statement over something like that, as the missing information the asker hasn't given could be very telling. Answering a potentially loaded question with a yes/no is rarely productive.

I listed our records, head to head match up, number of matches against each other, win %, our first 18 games, etc. every number that was asked for I provided. How were the numbers "cherrpicked" and what "missing" context can you possibly be looking for? I understand that you don't want to answer w/ a yes or no because it is very hard for people to admit when they are wrong. I didn't mention the other persons name for two reasons. The first is because it isn't about them. It is about how this system isn't good for competitive play. The second is I don't think you are allowed to. But I am unsure of several bga unwritten rules.

Like you mentioned above you found two players who don't match the description of the numbers I provided you. But since you mentioned it I do have a winning record against the #1 elo player and arena player (nonamekid) this season. Which just enhances my case. So should player a ever be losing to player b with all the statistics I provided? Add winning a head to head match throughout the season against the #1 ranked arena player to the list. Player a has 9 matches against the #1 player, player b has 0.

[Jellby]

If you want true competitive playing, play tournaments, or set up single games yourself. Arena is not the perfect and ultimate world championship. It is a sort of light-weight seasonal competition that uses elo rules. As any ranking system, it has its strengths, flaws and loopholes, and there is a meta-game about getting highest scores with the least "effort" (i.e. choosing when to play and when to stop, trying to "pick" your opponents with red thumbs and playing hours...). In particular, Arena scores don't care about head-to-head history or winning rates, so trying to argue based on those is moot. They only care about the scores at the time of the match and who wins.

[Ceaseless]

No, their rating does not give them magical powers. Their rating properly reflects how they are doing, it will not just wave a wand and make them do well. If they are doing poorly their rating will reflect that. If their quality of gameplay is changing, it will reflect that as well.

Because I don't make assumptions on who it has to be. I could easily see someone observing something from other players and using that. I looked at you and a player you went 5-4 with over 9 games, (NoNameKid), to pick someone close to the record you stated and an arena rating that would seem relevant. https://boardgamearena.com/gamestats?pl ... ateStats=1 In your head to heads you took the first game, they took 3 off you over a couple days, and then you took 4 off them a few days later. You've gained 91 points and lost 53 points for a total net gain of 38 points. As of your last game vs them, you were 1642 and they were 1577. Since then both of you played several Arena games after that, you've gone 29-16 they've got 13-2. You're now at 1577, and them 1682 as of the last time I looked, you seem to be playing as I type this, but I'm not doing instant updates, lol. After your head to heads they performed better than you from playing other people. I found these by checking the game history (if there is a way to filter arena games that would be nice to know, I just manually sorted through it.)

You don't have to play the same person to get your points back, you can play other people.

I don't see any games between you and Neronas7. https://boardgamearena.com/halloffame?g ... &season=12 The arena #3 of the past season. As for giving me statistics, no you've mentioned numbers but never linked to where they came from for others to check your claims for specifics. I haven't found the player you're referring to yet.

If a player managed to lose so much rating to drop behind them despite these hypothetical advantages, then I suspect there is something that isn't being mentioned about the circumstances to change the question from how it initially seems, such as cherrypicked data and missing context and would want to see that first before making a blanket yes/no statement over something like that, as the missing information the asker hasn't given could be very telling. Answering a potentially loaded question with a yes/no is rarely productive.

I listed our records, head to head match up, number of matches against each other, win %, our first 18 games, etc. every number that was asked for I provided. How were the numbers "cherrpicked" and what "missing" context can you possibly be looking for? I understand that you don't want to answer w/ a yes or no because it is very hard for people to admit when they are wrong. I didn't mention the other persons name for two reasons. The first is because it isn't about them. It is about how this system isn't good for competitive play. The second is I don't think you are allowed to. But I am unsure of several bga unwritten rules.

Like you mentioned above you found two players who don't match the description of the numbers I provided you. But since you mentioned it I do have a winning record against the #1 elo player and arena player (nonamekid) this season. Which just enhances my case. So should player a ever be losing to player b with all the statistics I provided? Add winning a head to head match throughout the season against the #1 ranked arena player to the list. Player a has 9 matches against the #1 player, player b has 0.

No, you typed numbers that you claimed were these things, but did not provide the actual information. Maybe because "it is very hard for people to admit they are wrong" . I did not see that the things you were referring to even existed, hence me asking for more information, given the #3 player in Arena last season did not have the record you described with you. Unlike you, I did provide the information, giving links to what I referenced and naming anything not linked in a way that anyone could check the information in question for themselves.

[ChiefPointThief]

If you want true competitive playing, play tournaments, or set up single games yourself. Arena is not the perfect and ultimate world championship. It is a sort of light-weight seasonal competition that uses elo rules. As any ranking system, it has its strengths, flaws and loopholes, and there is a meta-game about getting highest scores with the least "effort" (i.e. choosing when to play and when to stop, trying to "pick" your opponents with red thumbs and playing hours...). In particular, Arena scores don't care about head-to-head history or winning rates, so trying to argue based on those is moot. They only care about the scores at the time of the match and who wins.

So in other words arena mode isn't great for competitive play which was my stance from the beginning. But there were several people who proclaimed to me otherwise so I gave statistics to support my statement. It can easily be made more competitive but if that isn't bga intention then they should market it as something else. It doesn't have to be "ultimate world championship" but if you have a system in which a 9-9 player playing against weaker opponents can be ahead of someone 20 games over .500 then you can barely call that a light-weight competition.

For the record I thought arena mode was competitive mode because of the marketing. But I learned after 1 season that isn't what it is at all so I know what I'm getting.

[ChiefPointThief]

No, you typed numbers that you claimed were these things, but did not provide the actual information. Maybe because "it is very hard for people to admit they are wrong" . I did not see that the things you were referring to even existed, hence me asking for more information, given the #3 player in Arena last season did not have the record you described with you. Unlike you, I did provide the information, giving links to what I referenced and naming anything not linked in a way that anyone could check the information in question for themselves.

I'm just having a friendly debate with you cease. Are the numbers so astonishing that you believe I am lying and want to see it with your own eyes? If so I can dm you the name of the other player. But the purpose of my posts were to back my original statement about arena mode.

[Ceaseless]

No, you typed numbers that you claimed were these things, but did not provide the actual information. Maybe because "it is very hard for people to admit they are wrong" . I did not see that the things you were referring to even existed, hence me asking for more information, given the #3 player in Arena last season did not have the record you described with you. Unlike you, I did provide the information, giving links to what I referenced and naming anything not linked in a way that anyone could check the information in question for themselves.

I'm just having a friendly debate with you cease. Are the numbers so astonishing that you believe I am lying and want to see it with your own eyes? If so I can dm you the name of the other player. But the purpose of my posts were to back my original statement about arena mode.

A significant amount of the time, even when they think they're telling the truth, users leave key details out. Lots of discussions can be answered just be looking at what is actually claimed and going "oh hey, what's this? " and the whole thing got solved just like that.

[Jellby]

So in other words arena mode isn't great for competitive play which was my stance from the beginning. But there were several people who proclaimed to me otherwise so I gave statistics to support my statement.

It is not great for the competitive play you seem to want/expect. It is great for people who want/like that kind of competition. In life there are many different types of competition, and each likes their own best.

[Den Eddie]

I'm also thinking that this arena mode is just encouraging to play in the first 2 weeks, make sure you are leading and stop playing arena mode unless you have been beaten.

I'm playing a lot of cubirds. The top player his points haven't changed in 2 weeks. 2 weeks he didn't play, but still he stands at the top. I have been in the top 5, but the moment I loose a game I loose 3 times the point as when I win a game. It would be better having an elo system that takes in account games played in a certain time, against who you played and how many games you have played. This way you start loosing points if you do not play the game encouraging even good players to play.

To make it simple, if only the games in the last 2 days count and you start at 100:

Day 1 you win: +24, elo=124
Day 2 you loose -18, elo = 100 + 24*1/2 - 18 = 94
Day 2 you win +15, elo = 100 + 24*1/3 + -18*2/3 + 15 = 111.
Day 3, games of day 1 are not taking into account so you start at elo = 100 - 18*1/2 + 15 = 106
Day 3 you win + 27, elo = 100 + -18*1/3 + 15*2/3 + 27 = 131
Day 3 you loose -24, elo = 100 + -18*1/4 + 15*2/4 + 27*3/4 - 24 = 99

Ofcourse in real this would be the games in the last 30 days or so. The more you play, the more you can win and the more your losses can be neutralized.

[Jellby]

Ofcourse in real this would be the games in the last 30 days or so.

Is the last 90 days similar enough? Because that's exactly how it is now (90 days ~ 1 season).

By the way, if only the last 30 days count, what would be the point of playing the first 2 months of the season?