Arena scoring question

[buu441]

All the complaining in this thread is basically of the type "the system needs to change because I am not doing well in it" lol

[ChiefPointThief]

All the complaining in this thread is basically of the type "the system needs to change because I am not doing well in it" lol

I spoke on the negatives of arena as did shinuito. I don't know what your definition of complaining is but I've won arena, am currently winning arena, and shinuito has referenced being at the top.

[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.

Some quotes from the f.a.q.

"What is Arena game mode?
Arena Mode is the major competitive mode for all games on Board Game Arena.
Playing Arena Mode, you meet opponents in a competitive environment, and try to become the new world champion for each game!"

"When you lose a game, you lose Arena points. However, you cannot go below 0 points."

You start off w/ 1500 pts. I don't think you could get to 0 if you tried.

"Basically, if you beat very good players during this season, your EAS will be high, and if you beat weak players your EAS will be low."

This isn't true. Other players realize this too.

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32337

[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.

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

I believe the most you can lose in a arena game is 40pts. I would assume elo works the same for all games. The game in question I know playing regular games you cannot lose more than 20pts in regular games. I am the world elo leader in this game and lost once to someone w/ 1 elo. I had more than 500 elo and only lost 18.9 elo. So the elo you can lose in arena is double that of normal games but the amount of distance between players arena considers on your level is shrunk. This extremely benefits the underdogs. Looking at a game against another elite player I was ahead 86 elo and I only lost 12 for reg game (3:2). So really in the example above being ahead 60aes isn't that far. If it were a regular game we would get a equal amount for a victory but in arena the underdog is getting (3:2). Why is the "competitive mode" more geared to help the underdog than regular mode?

[ChiefPointThief]

For team games the elo system is even worse. The stronger players take most of the risk and a little of the reward for being paired w/ a low elo player.
In these games there is an opposite affect of players giving red thumbs. Instead of strategically red thumbing good players so they don't have to vs them they red thumb bad players so they won't be paired with them.

This is the last losing game from the arena leader in spades w/ all ranked opponents. They lose 70% of the teams total elo. The worse the player the higher that number is for the stronger player. I also noticed this person plays everyday but hasn't played arena in 3 weeks since reaching their mark. Which is understandable because it isn't beneficial at all to continuously play in a system w/ numbers like this.

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=405623208

[shinuito]

All the complaining in this thread is basically of the type "the system needs to change because I am not doing well in it" lol

I'm number 1 in four two player strategy games at the moment (five if you count one that doesn't really have enough players to get to an elite league - so lets say four), and aiming to get back to number 1 in a fifth, I've been temporarily displaced

I just don't really like the arena metagame, in small games in particular like the two player strategy games. Maybe it works fine in Azul with over a thousand players, no shortage of games, but in smaller games where arena is a large source of competitive games, the meta is basically to play till you reach the top and stop. There's no incentive to keep playing after that point, which could just be a couple of weeks in. Let someone below you struggle to gain points, possibly losing many more points than they can gain each match, and not be able to challenge you to take points directly away from you

I can only comment on my own experiences really.