Another complaint about ELO

[Felix Friedrich]

my girlfriend says that i dont get enough ELO. And i should earn at least double the amount of what i recive currently. I kind of agree with her, because otherwise she would be mad with me. Do you think it is possible to give me like an "Elo Boost?".
Bonne Ane happy new Year!

[Romain672]

After you play a certain number of games, your k-factor is reduced.
That's what happen to you.

The k-factor multiplay the gain and loss of elo you get.

[lordalx]

I would like to thank you all for your feedback on this subject.

I continue to regularly read your messages.
It goes without saying that any regression that occurs may need to be examined and dealt with.

But in reference to the primary remarks:

• Power leveling: we continue to monitor the status and it seems unfair not to be able to win ELO and only suffer the loss, even for players that keep on losing against the very same opponent.
• ELO Decay: based on all of your comments, it appears clear that this was a bad idea and that the leaderboard and arena currently in place allow for the prevention of the mentioned behavior. Consequently, we have chosen not to apply any ELO decay as originally planned.
• Red Thumbs: an attractive suggestion surfaced regarding the potential trade-off of having decaying red thumbs.

[MANNY-OLIVIA]

ELO Points gained and lost really does need to be changed.

All players should be allocated the same ELO Points, regardless of the number of games Played, Won and Lost.

For example, in Spades, mainly non-premium EXPERIENCED players are creating multi accounts
in order to rise through the rankings quickly because of the high ELO award.

How is this fair?

[FaultyLogic]

There is another point I don't believe someone talk about.
In a specific game where there is some interactions between players:
- 2p is 'very easy' to win. Highest elo of those playing that setting are around 800.
- 3p is 'easy' to win. Highest elo of those playing that setting are around 600.

This alone shows the problem.

In a fair system, the BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD who plays 3p games, should have A CHANCE at being ranked #1. So should the BEST player in 4p 5p, 6p…etc. Right now there is NO POSSIBILITY of the best player being ranked #1 unless they play 2p games. So the true best players in games where the ideal player count is 5+ simply can’t compete.

This is the percentage of elo we get from our wins and losses against each opponent:
# players __ % of elo allocated
2 players __ 100%
3 players __ 75%
4 players __ 67.2%
5 players __ 62.5%
6 players __ 50%
7 players __ 41.7%
8 players __ 35.7%
9 players __ 31.3%
10 players _ 27.8%

I think someone chose these numbers long ago and thought, “that looks about right”, but never investigated it further. At 50% win rate, it’s fair. But for the more successful players it’s not. When the elite players at 6p play each other they are only gaining 50% against opponents who also only gained 50% to get that high. So their disadvantage is multiplied the farther they are above average.

So if the average player is 200, when there are enough players in the pool that the leaders reach 300, the leaders in 6p will reach about 250. But from here, the 2p continues to have the % advantage, but also the opponents they play have higher elo as well. So their advantage is multiplied. When the 2p leaders have a ceiling of about 1000, the 6p leaders will will have a ceiling of about 400.

This ceiling is different ofc from game to game, as each game has a different average elo and popularity. But this same principle is happening across the site. 2p leaders do not just have higher scores because it’s a more controlled game, the penalty for playing with more players is incredibly unfair.

[ChiefPointThief]

There is another point I don't believe someone talk about.
In a specific game where there is some interactions between players:
- 2p is 'very easy' to win. Highest elo of those playing that setting are around 800.
- 3p is 'easy' to win. Highest elo of those playing that setting are around 600.

This alone shows the problem.

In a fair system, the BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD who plays 3p games, should have A CHANCE at being ranked #1. So should the BEST player in 4p 5p, 6p…etc. Right now there is NO POSSIBILITY of the best player being ranked #1 unless they play 2p games. So the true best players in games where the ideal player count is 5+ simply can’t compete.

This is the percentage of elo we get from our wins and losses against each opponent:
# players __ % of elo allocated
2 players __ 100%
3 players __ 75%
4 players __ 67.2%
5 players __ 62.5%
6 players __ 50%
7 players __ 41.7%
8 players __ 35.7%
9 players __ 31.3%
10 players _ 27.8%

I think someone chose these numbers long ago and thought, “that looks about right”, but never investigated it further. At 50% win rate, it’s fair. But for the more successful players it’s not. When the elite players at 6p play each other they are only gaining 50% against opponents who also only gained 50% to get that high. So their disadvantage is multiplied the farther they are above average.

So if the average player is 200, when there are enough players in the pool that the leaders reach 300, the leaders in 6p will reach about 250. But from here, the 2p continues to have the % advantage, but also the opponents they play have higher elo as well. So their advantage is multiplied. When the 2p leaders have a ceiling of about 1000, the 6p leaders will will have a ceiling of about 400.

This ceiling is different ofc from game to game, as each game has a different average elo and popularity. But this same principle is happening across the site. 2p leaders do not just have higher scores because it’s a more controlled game, the penalty for playing with more players is incredibly unfair.

I played a new game and received 30pts (both players 0 to start). I then played the same game again at 5p in which I won and only got 40pts (all players besides me 0 to start). That math doesn’t add up at all.
It is kind of unrealistic to expect a more complex system to compensate for this problem though because there are simpler concepts (like not losing elo to your teammates in team games) that aren’t still fully fixed yet. On top of the numbers being more in favor for smaller player counts as you mention 2p players are playing the same game but the game duration is 2x,3x, x amount of times faster. It is also easier to get games and get games with players on your level as you climb because it is easier to climb.

[Romain672]

The games in questions:
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=461108960 (2p: 0vs0 => +30 / +1)
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=461101503 (2p: 30vs1 => +0 / +32.5)
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=461129770 (5p: 33.5vs0vs0vs0vs1 =>)

I'm not seeing much the problem here.
The k-factor is lowered. Let's assume for one second it's not. The winner would have gotten +125.26 elo. That's a lot for a single game.

I'm not sure of that but I think some years ago I requested for k-factor to be lowered in high count games (6 nimmt!, saboteur, secret moon...) because those game got lots of random part (mainly from others players who focus X or Y), and so keeping consistently an elo above 200 was extremely hard. The swings were really big.
By lowering that k-factor (and on your game that mean in 5p to multiply all gains and loss by 0.325), you make it harder to get a streak of good luck.

And I think I just managed to argue against my previous post hmm

[silentProtest]

I would like to thank you all for your feedback on this subject.

I continue to regularly read your messages.
It goes without saying that any regression that occurs may need to be examined and dealt with.

But in reference to the primary remarks:

• Power leveling: we continue to monitor the status and it seems unfair not to be able to win ELO and only suffer the loss, even for players that keep on losing against the very same opponent.
• ELO Decay: based on all of your comments, it appears clear that this was a bad idea and that the leaderboard and arena currently in place allow for the prevention of the mentioned behavior. Consequently, we have chosen not to apply any ELO decay as originally planned.
• Red Thumbs: an attractive suggestion surfaced regarding the potential trade-off of having decaying red thumbs.

Im sorry, to citate again, just trying to make it easier visible for you, if it needs attention, in a sense, that it might benefit the site.

this seems to be the K-factor adjustments for #ofPlayers, which is only vaguely described in FAQ (, as "When you play with more than 1 opponent, we consider that you win against each opponent who scores lower than you during this game, and lose against each opponent who scores higher than you. For example, if you place 2nd in a 4 player game, you gain ELO points as if you won against the 3rd and 4th players, and lost against the 1st. In this case, the K factor is adjusted depending on the total number of players to make sure ELO variation is not too important (or too unimportant)."):
"
This is the percentage of elo we get from our wins and losses against each opponent:
# players __ % of elo allocated
2 players __ 100%
3 players __ 75%
4 players __ 67.2%
5 players __ 62.5%
6 players __ 50%
7 players __ 41.7%
8 players __ 35.7%
9 players __ 31.3%
10 players _ 27.8%
"

Since the K-Factor isnt shown in the summary, when you hover over elo gained, after the game; it would be neat to at least have that overview of K-Factor reduction, depending on #ofPlayers, in the FAQ.

[FaultyLogic]

The games in questions:
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=461108960 (2p: 0vs0 => +30 / +1)
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=461101503 (2p: 30vs1 => +0 / +32.5)
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=461129770 (5p: 33.5vs0vs0vs0vs1 =>)

I'm not seeing much the problem here.
The k-factor is lowered. Let's assume for one second it's not. The winner would have gotten +125.26 elo. That's a lot for a single game.

How do you know the K factor is lowered? Typically if you beat someone with the same elo as you, you gain about 10 elo. Also typically, you gain about 3X as much elo in your first 11 games. This looks like what happened here. ChiefPointThief gained 10, and it's about 3X as much for the new player bonus, so he gained 30 points. When he beat 3 opponents at once, he gained 13 elo, X3 for the new player bonus, and got 40.

For beating 1 opponent you gain 10 elo. (without new player bonus)
For beating 3 opponents you get 13 elo. (without new player bonus)

90% success in 2p is much easier than 90% success in 4p. But let's say the player in 4p is totally amazing and can keep the same win rate.
Who will have the higher elo?
The player playing 2p getting 100% elo allocation?
Or the player playing 4p getting 67% elo allocation?

Remember the entire pool of 2p players are getting 100%, and the entire pool of 4p players are getting 67. While the gain/loss on each table is equal, the 4p gamer will soon be hundreds behind, even though he is clearly the better player.

[Romain672]

How do you know the K factor is lowered?

So let me recheck without reading you:
K-factor should have the highest value (60) since it's the first few games of every player. (that point could be wrong)
In a 2 players game you gain +30 after a victory.

So here, if everyone start with 0 elo, you expect ChiefPointThief to gain +120.
He gained +40, so he only gained one third of what is expected (33%). My previous post assumed I believe 32.5%

90% success in 2p is much easier than 90% success in 4p. But let's say the player in 4p is totally amazing and can keep the same win rate.
Who will have the higher elo?
The player playing 2p getting 100% elo allocation?
Or the player playing 4p getting 67% elo allocation?

I think they would be in average equal. But the 2p one would get more swings of elo than the 4p one. So if you makes 50 players who only plays 2players and 50 players who only plays 4 players, you would get the first few place for 2players, then have mainly 2p and some 4p, then mainly 4p, then mainly 2p and some 4p, and then 2p. (again I'm not sure, so feel free to correct me with back-up)
But your question isn't precise. I assume 90% 1st place, and 10% last place.


To answer that: in non-interactive games, like Yahtzee, what happen for players who plays exclusively high count? Are they competitive?
If yes, I should be right.
If no, I should be wrong.
(but don't check the top players of Yathzee to answer that, if 99% of people plays 2p, you will get top players who plays 2p ofc)