Another complaint about ELO

[ufm]

The precise K-factor adjustment for multiplayer games is: N/(2*(N-1)), or R/(2*(N-1)) if R is not null and N > R
N = player count
R = recommended player count

[silentProtest]

The precise K-factor adjustment for multiplayer games is: N/(2*(N-1)), or R/(2*(N-1)) if R is not null and N > R
N = player count
R = recommended player count

awesome. THIS should be visable in FAQ, or somewhere central. (and not barried in some forum)

[ufm]

The precise K-factor adjustment for multiplayer games is: N/(2*(N-1)), or R/(2*(N-1)) if R is not null and N > R
N = player count
R = recommended player count

awesome. THIS should be visable in FAQ, or somewhere central. (and not barried in some forum)

https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=29568

[detlefchef11]

OK, this one make no sense at all. Three players. 2 with ELOs in the 300s, one with around 200. Person with the lower of the two 300 scores won it and got 14 ELO. Person with the score in the high 300s (nearly 400 actually) got 2nd and lost 6. Lowest ranking person lost and lost 27! How does that add up?

That is actually more than the ~500 ELO player lost by finishing last in the game that started this whole thread.

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=457542178&nr

[ufm]

https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=faq_account_elo

K-factor multiplier

[detlefchef11]

https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=faq_account_elo

K-factor multiplier

Then it's broken. Because, in a three player game, 1) if the lowest ranked player finishes last, they shouldn't get hammered on ELO and 2) with few exceptions it should be a net zero sum and this one wasn't close. About 30 pts were lost and only 15 gained.

Once again. The game I played that inspired this thread involved an expert level player coming in 4th out of 4 and losing 26 pts. In a game that included two players below 200. So, any metric that results in the lowest ranking player in the game finishing 3rd out of 3 losing MORE is flawed and needs to be revisited.

[Silene]

https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=faq_account_elo

K-factor multiplier

Then it's broken. Because, in a three player game, 1) if the lowest ranked player finishes last, they shouldn't get hammered on ELO and 2) with few exceptions it should be a net zero sum and this one wasn't close. About 30 pts were lost and only 15 gained.

I don't think you have fully read and understood the FAQ. Please read again the part about the K-factor for new(ish) players.

It's a bit of a problem that the mouse-over doesn't show individual players' K-factor in the game result screen anymore.

[detlefchef11]

https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=faq_account_elo

K-factor multiplier

Then it's broken. Because, in a three player game, 1) if the lowest ranked player finishes last, they shouldn't get hammered on ELO and 2) with few exceptions it should be a net zero sum and this one wasn't close. About 30 pts were lost and only 15 gained.

I don't think you have fully read and understood the FAQ. Please read again the part about the K-factor for new(ish) players.

It's a bit of a problem that the mouse-over doesn't show individual players' K-factor in the game result screen anymore.

I've read it and, admit that I don't completely understand it. But I don't need to understand what is trying to be accomplished by using it if I can see the results seem wrong.

There is a system in place that appears needlessly complicated that deducts more points for a low ELO player finishing last in a game against two players, one of whom had an ELO nearly twice theirs and another one about 150 pts higher, than it does a high ranking player (very high, in fact and they finished behind two players who were ranked quite low) for finishing last. I don't need to understand the intention to see that is a flawed system.

I also understand that it is not your intention to have it be a net zero sum. The desire to get people over 100 and keep them there requires that you abandon that goal. But I do feel it should somewhat resemble one. However, that is not my biggest gripe. My biggest gripe is that someone has gone through a lot of effort to make a very complicated system that fails on many levels.

And the rationale for that seems obtuse and self serving.

There's a dynamic where people who are too heavily invested in something lose perspective. And what normally helps is the perspective of someone who isn't in as deep as they are and isn't intimate with their thought process but simply looks at the end result and judges it based on whether or not it actually works. This appears to be such a case. Those involved with creating this are so invested in it that they're willing to look past abject failures on the part of the system because they've become infatuated with the process.

[detlefchef11]

In fact, I would argue that, if it is the intention of ELO to accurately evaluate player skill, as has been told to me by those defending the current system. Then number of games played should not be a factor. Because you're not looking at number of games played, you're looking at number of games played here. And, (I think) every game here is an online version of a board game. So someone could have played a game 100s of times before they joined BGA. I know I did. I played a bunch of Wingspan at home on the board and on Steam. So, the only thing that should be evaluated is how well they do and what level of player they're doing it against. Total games played on BGA is basically meaningless to anyone who recognizes that BGA is not the only place one can play these games.

[Romain672]

In fact, I would argue that, if it is the intention of ELO to accurately evaluate player skill, as has been told to me by those defending the current system. Then number of games played should not be a factor. Because you're not looking at number of games played, you're looking at number of games played here. And, (I think) every game here is an online version of a board game. So someone could have played a game 100s of times before they joined BGA. I know I did. I played a bunch of Wingspan at home on the board and on Steam. So, the only thing that should be evaluated is how well they do and what level of player they're doing it against. Total games played on BGA is basically meaningless to anyone who recognizes that BGA is not the only place one can play these games.

Many videos games does the same thing.
They hide elo during the first 5/10 games, because they make the player move up and down way faster to put them faster to their real elo.

Imagine that you have played 100 games of game X before joining bga and your level is about 200 elo.
Instead of having the actual system: 30elo>60elo>90elo>120elo>150elo>180elo>210elo which make you get your real elo in 7 games.
You would get: 10elo>20elo...>190elo>200elo and make you reach your real elo in 20 games.
So instead of making 7 unlucky player be against you (who got a lower elo than what you should have), you would make 20 unlucky player.

So no, you are wrong there.