🌿ELO System Updates

[GeoPaladin]

Chess is being played by millions of people worldwide, I'd say that's not a small amount of players. And even if you only look at the top-ranked chess players, yes, they mainly play each other. But there's those millions of other players that, directly or indirectly, exchange ELO points with these top players. Also, there's no limit to the maximum ELO rating in chess.

As to why it's a problem: the system as currently implemented continuously leeches elo points. If someone beats another person two or more times in a row, that's elo lost that will not be replenished unless a new player starts playing the game. If someone doesn't play for a few months, that's elo lost that will not be replenished either. This essentially means that the amount of total elo available to players starts decreasing more and more over time.

Apart from that issue, there's the issue of fairness: why should someone be punished for beating someone twice or more?

This is not limited to small beta games. It's just the games where this issue is most visible.

Elo is quite a pointless metric when you look into how it works. It depends on active player count (which constantly changes) and that all players who have entered, would keep playing (but many quit at some point, taking the points with them). The actual calculation of points per one game can be zero-sum in order not to inflate or deflate the value... but the value is inflating or deflating in other ways anyway.

The elo system is essentially a pyramid scheme. The more players you have, the higher someone can climb. If you only have 2 players who started at 1000 elo, then one player could get a max of 2000 points. With 3 players, it's 3000 etc. But this is not going to happen in practice. Note that in BGA the initial elo scores are working differently.

What actually happens is that there are lots and lots of players with below average elo, some players with medium elo, less players with high elo and very few with super high elo. In order for one group to gain any elo, they have to play with those who are one step below them and win, leeching elo for themselves. And then they lose to the players in a group higher than them.

Over time, as more players join the system, they bring fresh points into the system, which eventually allows the highest elos to gain more points (pyramid can grow if the foundation is wide enough). Similary, lots of players will stop playing the game and their elo is essentially cut out of the system (The players at the top can't gain more points by playing other players - better not to play or you would start falling off).

So, the system itself is not really as zero-sum as people think. Sure, each individual game kind-of is, but over time, it still either increases or decreases what the "active player base" total elo sum is.

So... elo over time is not really comparable. It doesn't really matter whether the system itself is adding or removing points into the system per individual games as long as everyone gets to play with the same rules. What you can compare is whether one player's current elo is higher or lower than another player's current elo... given that both players are actively playing the game within the same group and not choosing who they play with. If someone is taking a break, his old elo is not necessarily comparable to new player elo as the active player base might be much smaller or larger than the last time that player was actively playing.

I guess that BGA just wants the leaderboards to be more dynamic so that you would have to constantly prove yourself to the other active players. I am fine with that. The current approaches are not the best solutions to get there, but you can't really find the best system without actually testing it in real life. But overall, even with the new changes, the active players would still have the same ORDER in elo scores. It might be 100-200 lower than before but everyone will be lower. So overall it won't really matter. It's not about the score. It's about the comparison of one player vs another player.

Your point seems to boil down to the notion that elo is imperfect, so making it worse is inconsequential.

It's a poor argument. It does not address the complaints and concerns of other players. There's nothing dynamic about getting paired with the same low elo player six times in a month in Arena & getting zero elo.

[ChiefPointThief]

So... elo over time is not really comparable. It doesn't really matter whether the system itself is adding or removing points into the system per individual games as long as everyone gets to play with the same rules. What you can compare is whether one player's current elo is higher or lower than another player's current elo... given that both players are actively playing the game within the same group and not choosing who they play with.

This isn't true and was even acknowledged by bga in the one change that everyone agrees with (Team Elo). Just because everyone is playing in the same system it just doesn't even out as you make it seem because certain players (strong players) are inaccurately being ranked.

→ Team play
It is obviously unfair for games that play with teammates to have different ELO wins/losses within the same team. From now on, when playing games such as Belote, Decrypto, Tichu etc, you will not gain/lose ELO from the other players within your team.

I understand why h_illes is here all the time, in century there are only 17 other players who he can potentially expect to be able to gain elo against in the long term. For everyone else if he plays enough he will either get a 6 game winstreak against that person and be unable to gain any more elo, or have lost elo overall.

In Caravan there is only one other player who I could gain elo from in the long term. In sobek there are more possible players but another thing that needs to be considered is that there are real time players, turn based, and arena for both of those as well. There are a few experts I haven't seen in months because I prefer real time while they strictly play turn based arena it seems because I've only encountered them once or twice in real time before. So small player pools are broken down even more by these aspects. Lucky for me I play several different games but I agree that if I were h_illes (who 99% of his games are century) and the site is telling me I can only lose pts vs basically everyone I play this place would be a lot less pleasant.

[anykidrated]

As far as I am aware there are three potential solutions for these players. If somebody can think of another, please let me know.

1) Don't care about your elo, play anyway and accept that the games you are getting are bad for your elo.
2) Avoid the players you are on winstreaks against (potentially by red thumbing them).
3) Just don't play any games at all.

4) On non arena games, convert all games you will have decent winstreaks against, to friendly games. Limit arena games?
5) Heavily prioritise playing against 100 elo or less people.

IME this preserves the bulk of the elo

[6element]

Sorry, I'm a bit out of the loop. So, if I'm at top of the leaderboard, I just play one match every quarter, so I won't be hit by any penalties, while anyone trying to catch will be hit by power leveling? Sounds excellent.

Yep.

[6element]

As far as I am aware there are three potential solutions for these players. If somebody can think of another, please let me know.

1) Don't care about your elo, play anyway and accept that the games you are getting are bad for your elo.
2) Avoid the players you are on winstreaks against (potentially by red thumbing them).
3) Just don't play any games at all.

4) On non arena games, convert all games you will have decent winstreaks against, to friendly games. Limit arena games?
5) Heavily prioritise playing against 100 elo or less people.

IME this preserves the bulk of the elo

I'm maintaining "Consecutive 1", "Consecutive 2", etc. in personal notes regarding certain opponents. Then expel opponents who cannot provide noticeable Elo increase before the game starts (or leave the table without accepting). It definitely annoyed me and some of my would-be opponents. Maintaining these notes isn't fun, expelling people / being expelled isn't fun either.

This is on top of the fact that "we've stolen some of your earned Elo" is just plain annoying and not fun.

PS: Oh, BTW, that +50% price hike. Does BGA need us, players?

[h_illes]

As usual, feel free to post your feedback, we will continue to monitor the current situation and improve the system accordingly.

Still waiting. Feedback from players have been plenty, but so far, this has been a promise unkept. BGA, wake up!

[jeroenh]

As far as I am aware there are three potential solutions for these players. If somebody can think of another, please let me know.

1) Don't care about your elo, play anyway and accept that the games you are getting are bad for your elo.
2) Avoid the players you are on winstreaks against (potentially by red thumbing them).
3) Just don't play any games at all.

4) On non arena games, convert all games you will have decent winstreaks against, to friendly games. Limit arena games?
5) Heavily prioritise playing against 100 elo or less people.

IME this preserves the bulk of the elo

I'm maintaining "Consecutive 1", "Consecutive 2", etc. in personal notes regarding certain opponents. Then expel opponents who cannot provide noticeable Elo increase before the game starts (or leave the table without accepting). It definitely annoyed me and some of my would-be opponents. Maintaining these notes isn't fun, expelling people / being expelled isn't fun either.

This is on top of the fact that "we've stolen some of your earned Elo" is just plain annoying and not fun.

PS: Oh, BTW, that +50% price hike. Does BGA need us, players?

Why are you trying to game the ELO system and not play Arena instead?

[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.

[nik592]

Nice to hear BGA admins are listening! Thankyou for the update.

I like the idea of decaying red thumbs (assuming it is what I think, in that after a while, red thumbs will reset to neutral). I try to be judicious in my application of red thumbs and not apply them to people who I think might just be having a bad day (although, that's hard to know through a computer screen). Also, when I do hit players in tournaments that I've given red thumbs (or green thumbs too) and their behaviour in that game changes how I feel, I will often change the rating, so I'd be in agreement with something doing this behind the scenes, providing the interval of decay wasn't too long.

[h_illes]

Yay, feedback! Thanks. Axing the ELO decay is a wise decision.

Power leveling: we continue to monitor the status...

What is there to learn that is not clear already? Action is needed ASAP, because any further delay results in more harm. Personally, I estimate at least 20 points of ELO lost due to the winning streak penalty in Century: Spice Road. It may not sound like a lot, but it will keep accumulating. And the only way to avoid it is stop playing, which is not something I want (or pay for).

In any case, I suggest changing the decision making process in the future. The best would be consulting the player base before applying any changes in the future, as the players apparently have a much better understanding of the consequences of changes than whoever is making decisions at BGA. But even if you don't want that, there's gotta be some way to stop bad ideas from getting into production. (And let me emphasize that bad ideas are not the problem itself, anyone can have poor judgment momentarily. As long as there are mechanisms in place which filter bad ideas out in time, it's all good.)