ELO & Fun

[HanabiGrandMaster]

The changes to the ELO system got me thinking about competitive play. I was wondering how you (all BGA players) feel about competition.

Question to y'all: If you play a competitive game, what odds to win would you find fun?

Example answer (How I see it)
In Team vs the Game situations, I would prefer a >99% win rate for the team. I don't like losing a game, just because we got unlucky.
In Player vs Player situations, I wouldn't like anything more imbalanced than 33% : 66%, from either perspective. If I get matched against a better player, but I manage to eek out a win, that's great! But if he steamrolls me, there was no competition. So two-to-one odds is about as low as I would go.
I don't really like Free For All situations. There is a lot of opportunity for King-Making, but not a lot of opportunity for winning. Ideally, Free For All games should have equal odds for all players, and can't really be skill-based.

Some context:
I have held a tennis racket about thrice in my life. If I were to play tennis against Roger Federer (picked him, because we're the same age), he could destroy me. I don't want to speculate how it would go in reality, but I don't think it would be fun for either of us. Either he would have to hold back so much, that he wouldn't be playing tennis. Or I would barely touch a ball.

I assumed that people, in general, would like to play games against people of relatively similar skill level.

However, recently I've encountered more and more people who deliberately lose something like 10 games in a row to lower their ELO. Only then to steam-roll lower level players 10 games in a row; and then rinse and repeat. They clearly are not concerned about their ELO, but are looking for that victory-rush.

[RobertBr]

I assumed that people, in general, would like to play games against people of relatively similar skill level.

You are wrong. Players do not like very large imbalances in skill, but the most casual observation of people in competitive activity would show that people are not looking to be matched consistently against people of relatively similar skill.

[katmk]

That's an interesting question. Speaking only personally, my ideal opponents differ according to how well I know the game.

For a new game, I like to learn from someone accomplished (and friendly!) who I can ask questions of if things are unclear and who might share tips.

Then when I am getting to grips with it, I like to play similar level players (and I set my elo settings accordingly).

Once I am confident I understand the game and have had a few wins, I am willing to play anyone. Of course I enjoy winning, but I also am interested in what I can learn from better players.

If I get very good at a game, I will avoid joining a game with people of much lower elo than me, because they will probably not enjoy being beaten heavily but I might open up another game, so that they can join me if they want to.

[HanabiGrandMaster]

That's an interesting question.

Thanks for your reply. I like that you bring nuance to your own level of expertise. I feel the same, but I never thought about it that way.

[Strode]

In Team vs the Game situations, I would prefer a >99% win rate for the team. I don't like losing a game, just because we got unlucky.

I wouldn’t want to play a game that were that easy to win. But you’re assuming the losses are all due to luck. What about losing due to skill?

[Ceaseless]

However, recently I've encountered more and more people who deliberately lose something like 10 games in a row to lower their ELO. Only then to steam-roll lower level players 10 games in a row; and then rinse and repeat. They clearly are not concerned about their ELO, but are looking for that victory-rush.

10 in a row? Seems excessive. Wait until you see the players that do nothing but beat up on far lower rated players for the easy wins. 1 loss is all it takes for them to drop the rating lost by over a dozen wins. (It's not just that they face lower rated players, as anyone can be paired vs those if they climb higher than the regular group, it's that they cancel anytime they get paired vs someone relatively close to them.)

[katmk]

Thanks for your reply. I like that you bring nuance to your own level of expertise. I feel the same, but I never thought about it that way.

You're welcome! I am prone to overthinking

[detlefchef11]

I generally prefer to play against players who are better than me. If I manage to beat them, then I'm thrilled. If they beat me, I typically pick something up that improves my game. Either way I'm happy.

I especially like it when, at first it seems they're doing something illogical, but I end up realizing there was logic there. I just didn't see it. Then, just like that, I have another arrow in my quiver. I played against a better player in Wingspan. His first two cards in the forest gained him extra food and there was trash in the tray, so he just stockpiled food the first round. I thought, "what the heck is this guy doing? He doesn't even have any cards." But, because he was 1st to play in the 2nd round when the tray reset, he was just banking on something better being there rather than wasting turns drawing blind. There was, he took it, and already had the food to play it. In fact, he didn't have to draw food again for a while. Ended up beating me rather handily. Things like that.

Now, I don't think it would be much fun to play someone SO MUCH better than I am that I have no idea what they're doing even after the fact. That doesn't make you a better player.

[turtler7]

In Team vs the Game situations, I would prefer a >99% win rate for the team. I don't like losing a game, just because we got unlucky.

For new players I want them to have less than a 50% winrate with 25% being about right for me.
For good-advanced players I want it to be over 50% with 66% and 75% being pretty solid.
For the best players in the world, I still don't want it past 80%. What is the point in playing if your decisions don't matter and make the difference. Sure that means some games were probably unwinnable, but a large number of the wins would be games that were razor edge cases with every choice being the difference between ending now and winning. The important thing for me is that it is hard to say a game that stacks against us quickly is actually "unwinnable" vs just a tough one. I want the best players to have a decent chance to salvage those and win anyway. The importance for me is both in the perception of choice mattering, and statistics that confirm skill is a rewarded feature.

[Meeplelowda]

In Team vs the Game situations, I would prefer a >99% win rate for the team. I don't like losing a game, just because we got unlucky.

What is the point in playing if your decisions don't matter and make the difference. Sure that means some games were probably unwinnable, but a large number of the wins would be games that were razor edge cases with every choice being the difference between ending now and winning.

These are my favorite sessions of a cooperative game, where the game is balanced such that when we win it's on the very last turn because on the next turn the [insert thematically bad event here] would have happened.

Personally, if a game is so easily won that you basically have to try to lose in order to fail, then what's the point?