🌿ELO System Updates

[Wonderful Plays]

Have you considered adressing cheating problems in another way?
Instead of changing the way ELO work for example:
Have an alert triggered after each completed ranked game that checks if it's a consecutive game with the same players with the same result, some additional verifiers, alerts towards player, stricter punishment for proven cheats.

If * has a problem with cheaters it doesn't change how the elo works, it uses a detection system to identify them. I know this is different kind of cheating, but it's actually much easier to detect.

Can you elaborate why red thumbing not working in arena would hurt players outside of arena?

*Moderator edit: please do not specifically name other gaming platforms

[LesserJester]

If elo doesn't really matter and isn't a measure of anything other than a vague skill identifier why make changes to it at all?

[ChiefPointThief]

On one hand, the changes made ELO worse as a measure of skill, as has been explained in detail in this thread (already during the first 10 or so pages) On the other hand, BGA actually promotes ELO as a badge of honor by handing out ELO-related awards and ranks, rendering your own argument invalid.

Some people in this thread seem to forget that ELO isn't the very core of what BGA offers.

You present that as some sort of ultimate truth, but it's not. People look for and appreciate very different things. This thread itself is a testament to that.

Also, the argument that ELO is not important anyway is NOT an argument for otherwise bad changes to it. Those changes are still bad, and should be fixed as soon as possible.

If elo doesn't really matter and isn't a measure of anything other than a vague skill identifier why make changes to it at all?

They want it to matter, but they don't want you to think that it matters, because of this it can be bad in certain aspects, but you should overlook that, because it shouldn't matter to you, even though it does actually matter even according to them.

[Ranior]

I'm glad we're finally hearing back, but I'm not really happy with the explanation.

In what way are you considering it a good thing for the elo penalty for repeatedly playing the same opponent? I've got to assume the BGA team sees it as a win because it reduces reports you have to review of people abusing the rating system, and so from an admins daily perspective, it may be a win. But from the point of view of the user, the game player, it's still a total mess. You're penalizing strong players for winning a lot, you penalize players in games with small player pools, you penalize players for playing more often, and you disincentive players from making friends and repeatedly playing the same opponent(s) (even with many games played in between).

These are still pretty awful side effects, and they hurt many players. I get wanting to reduce cheaters and abuse of the system, but this method still is not it, and it's leading to a lot more unwanted side effects. (Players kicking people off of tables and/or assigning red thumbs to avoid playing against opponents they cannot gain elo from, choosing not to play games, etc)


The one thing I am kind of excited by--if you actually raise the karma threshold for playing in arena games, along with some of the other stricter requirements you suggested.

Finally, I'm with the others in that just because I care about discussing elo, I'm not doing it because my own worth is tied up in the number, but because I want to help make the elo system work as intended--to help show and reflect skill levels. In so far as your proposed changes regarding consecutive opponents continues to reduce the accuracy of the elo system I will be against it.

[Stroom]

This explanation is REALLY weak. Trying to solve cheating issues by punishing honest players as well. And being OK with it. This isn't even solving the issue in the long term. There will likely be many other ways to cheat the system. Just create more users and bypass all these automatic checks.

[h_illes]

In my first comment after the official response, I was trying to be positive, even if it is undeserved. I see the others haven't been so kind -- gotta love the 'do you understand?' comment. That's what you get for still trying to sell the consecutive wins penalty as a positive change.

Depending on the details of the consecutive losses penalty, it could work similar (or even identical) to a reduced K factor, which would be fine, OR it could work as detailed by gmrsmrt or Silene, which would be poor. Details matter a lot in this case.

[Silene]

Depending on the details of the consecutive losses penalty, it could work similar (or even identical) to a reduced K factor, which would be fine, OR it could work as detailed by gmrsmrt or Silene, which would be poor. Details matter a lot in this case.

If criticizing someone personally - could you at least be specific on the matter what you're actually talking about? I mean - the reduced K-factor is one of the "Details" I have given (since page 2 of this thread). You're sending some mixed messages there

[KenFin1]

Depending on the details of the consecutive losses penalty, it could work similar (or even identical) to a reduced K factor, which would be fine, OR it could work as detailed by gmrsmrt or Silene, which would be poor. Details matter a lot in this case.

If criticizing someone personally - could you at least be specific on the matter what you're actually talking about? I mean - the reduced K-factor is one of the "Details" I have given (since page 2 of this thread). You're sending some mixed messages there

Have I missed something? I didn't read that as criticizing anyone rather I saw it as saying that flaws in a possible implementation mentioned by yourself would be a poor outcome. That's not a personal attack or criticism of an individual, you or anyone else, so far as I can tell. But I am so catching up with the latest posts so maybe I've missed something.

[h_illes]

Depending on the details of the consecutive losses penalty, it could work similar (or even identical) to a reduced K factor, which would be fine, OR it could work as detailed by gmrsmrt or Silene, which would be poor. Details matter a lot in this case.

If criticizing someone personally - could you at least be specific on the matter what you're actually talking about? I mean - the reduced K-factor is one of the "Details" I have given (since page 2 of this thread). You're sending some mixed messages there

No criticism directed at you, your analysis in your first post since the latest official response is perfectly valid. I meant that in case the K factor is decreased regardless of the result of the last game, that's fine, but if the K factor depends on the result of the last game, that would be a poor change. Sorry for not being more specific.

[Silene]

Depending on the details of the consecutive losses penalty, it could work similar (or even identical) to a reduced K factor, which would be fine, OR it could work as detailed by gmrsmrt or Silene, which would be poor. Details matter a lot in this case.

If criticizing someone personally - could you at least be specific on the matter what you're actually talking about? I mean - the reduced K-factor is one of the "Details" I have given (since page 2 of this thread). You're sending some mixed messages there

No criticism directed at you, your analysis in your first post since the latest official response is perfectly valid. I meant that in case the K factor is decreased regardless of the result of the last game, that's fine, but if the K factor depends on the result of the last game, that would be a poor change. Sorry for not being more specific.

That's why I am confused. You said something i suggested is a poor solution. I don't know what exactly you refer to and given that we basically suggested the same thing, this leaves me a bit puzzled ^^. Not feeling "personally" attacked though - that was bad wording from me
Both my suggested solutions have a K-Factor being adjusted BEFORE the result of the newest game (where it is applied) is known which I consider a key perk for a fair ELO-system.