🌿ELO System Updates

[GeoPaladin]

*

*moderator edit: post removed for defamation

One can only hope the admins are paying as much attention as the moderators.

100%. While I guess that post went too far, I very much appreciate h_illes's continued attempts to ask for a reversion of these ELO System changes which are very much a net negative to the community.

Likewise. There's so much I love about this site, but the elo change has worsened the experience with little to no benefit.

I'm not too upset the devs made a mistake. It happens. I'm rather disappointed that we've not received more communication or a reversion yet. To all appearances, they are ignoring us and hoping we go away, which would be rather poor, unprofessional behavior.

I appreciate all those continuing to push for a response.

[Ranior]

I too have still been watching this thread hoping for updates. It's wild to me that this hasn't been changed, the end effect is a worse user experience.

[TricksyFox]

We used to be able to see our ELO for co-op games on the game acceptance screen, but now we can't even see that.

Does this still affect Hardback despite it being competitive?

I only play turn-based so I don't know if it's visible on the acceptance screen, but I can confirm that it's still hidden in-game.

[h_illes]

100%. While I guess that post went too far, I very much appreciate h_illes's continued attempts to ask for a reversion of these ELO System changes which are very much a net negative to the community.

Apparently it was too far. Thanks for the support though, guys (GeoPaladin too).

That said, the main issue remains.

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.

You specifically asked for feedback, got TONS of it and yet you remain silent. RSVP.

[LesserJester]

We used to be able to see our ELO for co-op games on the game acceptance screen, but now we can't even see that.

Does this still affect Hardback despite it being competitive?

I only play turn-based so I don't know if it's visible on the acceptance screen, but I can confirm that it's still hidden in-game.

Having just won my first competitive game I can confirm no ELO visible before, during or after. Competitive but no ELO. What's the logic in that? Who plays the game coop? I only use that mode for solo practice. I really don't understand this change tbh. It seems completely pointless.

[LesserJester]

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.

*

*moderator edit: post removed for defamation

FWIW I read your post and can't remember everything it said but I can't recall seeing anything I felt defamatory (but I'm not a mod and they must have a different set of rules). It did sound a bit angry though.

Like a lot of us you are annoyed by the changes and the subsequent lack of apparent response, which iirc you were trying to say felt dismissive or even uncaring (your perception, whether the reality or not).

Did they give you any useful feedback what was wrong? If not I guess make valid points calmly and fairly, and steer away from making absolute statements about BGA. To me saying "it feels that they don't care" is different from "They just don't care". You see how one is your opinion/interpretation where the other is an absolute accusation? Maybe that might help avoid other post censoring/redaction.

My wife often feels I don't care about emptying the dishwasher. I do, I just take my time about doing it. Recently often because I'm on here struggling to see the point in removing ELO from a competitive game of hardback. That makes me confused and I struggle to fathom the reason why that change was made, or how that is supposed to be a positive change. BGA can you clarify? Why remove a competitive game scoring system?

[h_illes]

FWIW I read your post and can't remember everything it said but I can't recall seeing anything I felt defamatory (but I'm not a mod and they must have a different set of rules). It did sound a bit angry though.

IMO there is no excuse for the lack of communication. I can see situations where there is an excuse for the lack of action, e.g. if they are dealing with bigger issues that need immediate attention etc. But communication would take such a minimal effort. Even saying something like 'we haven't decided on anything yet' or 'we are working on other issues right now' would be better than complete silence. I think the lack of communication is very disrespectful to the player base.

Obviously, being disrespectful by not saying anything will not result in moderation, but at the end of the day, it is not that much different from being disrespectful by saying something.

Also, I can see a larger pattern of reducing transparency: apart from the lack of communication, ELO is not displayed for certain games; also, ELO calculation is not visible for games played more than a week ago. It looks almost like they are trying to hide something, which is just poor work culture in general. If you know something is bad, fix it instead of trying to cover it up. Of course, there might be some other reason behind hiding ELO - but if this is the case, once again, communication would help.

In general, there should be as much transparency as possible.

[TricksyFox]

IMO there is no excuse for the lack of communication. I can see situations where there is an excuse for the lack of action, e.g. if they are dealing with bigger issues that need immediate attention etc. But communication would take such a minimal effort.

Not only that, but ELO on co-op games was previously visible on the acceptance screen and now it's not, so obviously they had time to make THAT change. But no time to actually fix the things people are complaining about or to communicate with the player base.

[GeoPaladin]

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.

It has now been 30 full days since your last communication with us, and 50 days since the initial decision to implement this system that has received so much backlash.

I'm not sure with whom the fault lies for this, but it reflects very poorly on the site to ignore a large portion of its playerbase to all appearances. Even if you don't intend to revert the unpopular changes or resolve the problem, please at least let us know this. If you're still debating amongst yourselves or reviewing metrics, or trying to come up with an alternative solution, please let us know - we can't read minds and silence does not breed trust.

Thank you for your time.

[gmrsmrt]

My 2 cents

Why don't try the following:
make an average on all the games played (may be in the last X months), then compute the probability (or a close approximation to it) that
player A and B will be paired 2, 3, 4, etc.... times assuming that the pairing was completely casual. If the probabilty is abnormally low
lower the k factor accordingly (for both players) so that ELO gain/loss is equal. This should cure some paradox of the actual system and
should avoid that a player's elo is completely driven by playing with a restricted bunch of friens.

Of course this doesn't solve the many issues raised into the previous posts.