🌿ELO System Updates

[h_illes]

I don't think they're going to answer. We're stuck with this garbage. The only thing that will make them possibly change now is if enough people leave the site and cancel their subscriptions. I think that's what they're waiting to see. Moaning people who still play and pay doesn't affect them. So it all comes down to how people disappear and whether numbers go up/down/or stay the same. Anything other than down means they won't revert.

But what's the point? Why make a change for the worse and wait to see how bad it actually is? Instead, they could just revert the changes and avoid losing customers without any downside. There is literally nothing they win by leaving it this way.

[LesserJester]

I don't think they're going to answer. We're stuck with this garbage. The only thing that will make them possibly change now is if enough people leave the site and cancel their subscriptions. I think that's what they're waiting to see. Moaning people who still play and pay doesn't affect them. So it all comes down to how people disappear and whether numbers go up/down/or stay the same. Anything other than down means they won't revert.

But what's the point? Why make a change for the worse and wait to see how bad it actually is? Instead, they could just revert the changes and avoid losing customers without any downside. There is literally nothing they win by leaving it this way.

Oh I agree, but what else can we conclude from the lack of response?

[h_illes]

Well, I have arrived at other conclusions, but I can't write those here or I will get moderated...

[6element]

I conclude that the person responsible for the situation for some reason thinks that admitting that their design wasn't good means losing the face. No, it is not, only a person who does nothing makes no mistakes.

Now the strategy is to do nothing with the hope that complains will eventually cool down and this will be "the new norm".

PS: I just had to expel yet another good player from the table due to "Consecutive 4". They weren't happy about it. It doesn't look like what we've got is acceptable, TBH.
PPS: The site still treats Elo of players who are playing ~ten games daily and a game per month as the same thing. Sorry, but with the current rules these are two different things. Elo of active players is easily deflated 10-20%. It is very far from fair competition.
PPPS: Is it possible to search for threads with high number of views in this forum? This thread is approaching 2M. Is there a different thread with at least 200K views?

[h_illes]

I conclude that the person responsible for the situation for some reason thinks that admitting that their design wasn't good means losing the face. No, it is not, only a person who does nothing makes no mistakes.

The way to save face would have been to quickly revert the changes once it became clear (to whoever is responsible) they are bad designs. That ship is gone now, but even now, resuming communication and reverting the changes would still be helpful.

[TBGF]

I've been a Premium member for a couple of years and don't think I've posted anything in the forums before.

But I can't stand by silent any more about this topic. The current ELO penalty from winning against the same opponent is absolutely ridiculous!

I play a few games that I love strictly in Arena mode. I have absolutely no control on who I'm matched up against. I play multiple games a day and play against a variety of opponents. However, now I cringe when I get matched up with certain players because I won't get a single ELO point against them when I win. It doesn't matter how many players I've gone up against in between those plays but because I steadily beat this player when we match up, I get squat for the game.

Even being at a higher ELO than that player, the challenge to win each time is still real. And those games can be close. But it doesn't matter one bit to my BGA ELO in a win.

It competely stinks and I'm fed up with this scoring.

Please, please, please - get rid of this.

[buklo]

Wao! Now I understand the mystery of no ELO increase. I thought it was a bug! This change is absolutely disgusting.

Borrowing from the previous comment: "Even being at a higher ELO than that player, the challenge to win each time is still real. And those games can be close." I have no idea how developers of this fantastic platform does not recognize this!

If your underlying "business oriented" reason is to make the high ELO players (who stopped playing a game after reaching a certain level) to play more to maintain the high ELO with these pathetic ELO rule changes, you have lost the plot.

But the positive thing is, I have been spending way too much time on this platform and that can stop now!

[GeoPaladin]

I expect the number of people upset at the change is, if anything, underestimated by 56 pages and 200 views.

Not only do we have to consider that the number of complaints is typically only a fraction of the people who are upset by a change, but also the number of people who check the forums is almost certainly a fraction of the playerbase. You have to go actively looking in order to possibly figure out the cause of the problem. The fact that so many first-time and first few time posters are in this thread says a lot.

[The Nuzzer]

Why can't ELO be a user option in collaborative games? I'd turn mine on to play Hanabi. If others don't want to see it then they can leave it off.

[KenFin1]

Why can't ELO be a user option in collaborative games? I'd turn mine on to play Hanabi. If others don't want to see it then they can leave it off.

Careful now, that almost sounds like common sense. That kind of crazy talk can get a person in trouble round these parts.

Take a look at hardback. A competitive game they've removed ELO from because it has a coop mode that people use for.... solo play and training. Never seen it used in the wild for a match. What's the point of changing it?

I expect the number of people upset at the change is, if anything, underestimated by 56 pages and 2M views.

Not only do we have to consider that the number of complaints is typically only a fraction of the people who are upset by a change, but also the number of people who check the forums is almost certainly a fraction of the playerbase. You have to go actively looking in order to possibly figure out the cause of the problem. The fact that so many first-time and first few time posters are in this thread says a lot.

Fixed that for you. It makes a difference! 2.0x10^6 views to 2sf. Technically 1,947,699 but maybe they're waiting for those missing 52,301 views before responding?!

Edit, sorry, it's gone up to 1947830 as I typed. 131 views just while I wrote this?! WOW

Edit 2, now 1947898 just a minute later. That seems abnormally high. BGA is there any info on where these hits are coming from?

Edit 3, 4 hours later, it's now 1954288 so that's been 6390 in 4 hours, 1598 views per hour. Has BGA set up some sort of scraper monitor to gather data on this thread that is auto collecting every x seconds/minutes? That might account for it if in doing so it refreshes the page and triggers a view. If so it's even worse that they haven't responded, and also they've torpedoed their own ability to gauge community interest. If not then i can't see who else would bother doing that.