🌿ELO System Updates

[statmatt]

Firstly, I appreciate BGA had good intentions with these changes, and they were attempts to remedy some of the negative behaviours seen on this site.

However, I, like many other commenters, have concerns with some of the changes proposed, particularly 'Power Levelling' and 'ELO Decay'. I'm not going to re-explain the reasons, as others have taken the time. But I really hope the admins take note of this discussion, I see many high level players across multiple games have contributed to this thread, and BGA should really be taking note of these player's opinions.

I would like to have a clarification on this:

Doing so, a regular ELO decay is introduced to slowly drop the ELO from top ranked players that do not play anymore. The decay will be -10% at the end of the Arena Season for all Strong players and above that did not play any ranked game, but this could be adjusted later (both scope and frequency). The decay will not move player from a rank lower than Strong.

I play a lot of non-arena games. So if I don't play in an arena season, but have played non-arena games throughout the duration of that arena season, am I still subject to the 10% ELO decay? And is it as simple as just playing a single arena game every season for each game I want to not suffer an ELO decay in?

[GeraldineMerida]

There are so many issues that players have been begging you to address, that apparently you don't have the resources for (from years' old suggestions still unaddressed to fixing the issues with the new games lobby you rushed through), yet you do have the manpower to make largely unwanted changes like degrading ELO.

This change will be especially unpopular with the most hardcore players, who love to achieve a high rank in many games, and usually pay for the privilege, as premium subscribers.

Too many of the changes you make seem designed to appeal to newer, more casual players, and while some of those may eventually subscribe, they are not the ones paying to make your site successful now.

Please do a better job of consulting among top players before you make changes.

And when you do announce changes, please don't be so patronising: who are you to decide what I should be focusing on when I play a challenging co-op game like Hanabi?

[zizzeus]

Adding my agreement to the majority of the thread that is not happy with the ELO decay and power-levelling features brought in, for the reasons already mentioned many times.

Power-levelling will absolutely kill small (or emerging) arena games like Homesteaders, where there are only 4 regular players but could grow if spread.

As for ELO decay: Personally, I like to work a game until I hit a threshold, at which point I consider it 'learned' and move on, typically with my group of 10 RL friends who also play here. We then tackle a new game and repeat. I really don't want to play a game as a chore just to maintain a ranking, and I don't have enough time to play all of my historical games, work current games, try new games, and also work, see my family, sleep, etc...

Yes, I could not care about ELO more, you might say, but I do, and it's clear others do too, so why not just accept that some people care about it? ELO is also a decent enough commitment device to get one playing to win, and I use it to scout new opponents and see what skill they might have, and how much time I need to spend analyzing a game with them. I also look at other, similar games, to get a sense of their strategic ability. This lets me cut corners when making moves, which returns time back to real life. ELO decay would take that away from me, costing me more personal time.

And, as mentioned, it doesn't even solve the problems brought up, which to most players satisfaction are already solved by the 60-day cutoff on the leaderboard! So, you're stabbing at a ghost here. I really hope you revert these two changes, and though I don't play co-op games, it sounds like that change wasn't great either.

While you're at it, please just show the ELO in the arena. I can see it by clicking through to the person's profile if I don't recognize their name, but you're just adding extra time to my experience which I resent.

[Romain672]

I would agree with this. I just got a 25% reduction in ELO from a win (https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=450231855) and the last time I played this opponent was 11/29/2023.

Old post, but it seem there was no reduction here, juste someone get rounded up and the other one down. Players win and lost the same amount of elo.

on a 2p table, the winner gains 100% of the allocated ELO. So you would gain 10 of the 10 ELO you earned.
on a 5p table, the winner gains 62.5% of the allocated ELO. So you would gain 25 of the 40 ELO you earned.
maybe this sounds fair so far…it isn’t…
on a 10p table, the winner gains 27.8% of the allocated ELO. So you would gain 25 of the 90 ELO you earned.
notice you gain 25 ELO whether you beat 4 opponents or 9 opponents, so nothing for the extra 5 opponents.

Many games of 6+ players are more party/role games. On those game, there is a lot of randomness because you can more easily target someone or have some teammate of random level. If the swing of elo is too high on those game, the elo will mean nothing.
But the last sentence you quoted is weird for sure, can you explain more? Do you have an example?

[Wild_Hamster228]

I feel like changes about elo decay and losing elo when winning consecutively vs same player will lead to elo deflation in long term, because the sum of total elo for all players will only decrease with time, so it basically kills the basic concept of elo system.

[h_illes]

Not sure what's up, but the 'power levelling fix' does not seem to apply to this game:
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=451014159
of this streak:
https://boardgamearena.com/gamestats?pl ... ateStats=1

Was the fix reverted? If so, thank you! In any case, an announcement would be nice.

Edit: no it wasn't, I just got a deduction for my win. BGA, wake up!

[Wreckage]

on a 2p table, the winner gains 100% of the allocated ELO. So you would gain 10 of the 10 ELO you earned.
on a 5p table, the winner gains 62.5% of the allocated ELO. So you would gain 25 of the 40 ELO you earned.
maybe this sounds fair so far…it isn’t…
on a 10p table, the winner gains 27.8% of the allocated ELO. So you would gain 25 of the 90 ELO you earned.
notice you gain 25 ELO whether you beat 4 opponents or 9 opponents, so nothing for the extra 5 opponents.

Many games of 6+ players are more party/role games. On those game, there is a lot of randomness because you can more easily target someone or have some teammate of random level. If the swing of elo is too high on those game, the elo will mean nothing.
But the last sentence you quoted is weird for sure, can you explain more? Do you have an example?

I think you mean this sentence from me: With the new penalty for playing the same opponent multiple times, the 2p advantage will be increased even more, since players at larger tables will meet the same opponents more.

What I mean is, if there are 1000 players of a certain game, you could theoretically play 999 times without meeting the same opponent if you play 2p games. If you play with more opponents each game, you will be replaying the same opponents more often. Since playing the same opponent will be penalized, it is an additional, but different advantage given to playing with the lowest player count, which is already incredibly unfair.

[Osnofaac]

elo winning penalty on consecutive wins against the same players should not be applied in arena. no way to hand pick opponents.

[Ceaseless]

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 21#p162021 To give credit where credit is due, the new system for player repetition has caught a cheater. That's a point in the update's favor to be fair.

[h_illes]

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 21#p162021 To give credit where credit is due, the new system for player repetition has caught a cheater. That's a point in the update's favor to be fair.

Decreasing the K factor would have achieved the same positive result, without the negatives.