Reconsider Arena Rankings System

[mturton]

I stopped playing Arena because the current system disincentivizes play because losses are punished so heavily.

The simplest thing to do is make each level a fixed number of wins, with the number increasing at each level. Losses dont hurt, but each win helps. The winner would be the one who reached the requisite wins in the fewest games.

Right now it is a zero fun grind that many players avoid.

Losses are supposed to be punished heavily, that's how they make it that your rating stops going up, which is one of the goals. If you want to keep getting solid rating increases for wins, you have to beat even higher rated players. Or, in the less ideal case of further spread rating gaps, you have to keep up even higher win rates.

Your method would not be good, the point of your system would be to abuse weaker players so that you don't lose games. High win percentages are a bad thing, it means the pairing was awful.

Weaker players are going to lose most games regardless of what system we use. Strong players will move up regardless.

The point of a simple threshold is that at some point the weakest will make it over the number and feel success, whereas in Arena at present weak players go nowhere because losses are punished more heavily than wins are rewarded. Its demoralizing to see all one's hard earned gains get wiped out suddenly due to a couple of losses. That is why I don't play.

The current system is unpopular. Wouldn't it be better to have a friendlier system that wasnt so brutal?

[Ceaseless]

I stopped playing Arena because the current system disincentivizes play because losses are punished so heavily.

The simplest thing to do is make each level a fixed number of wins, with the number increasing at each level. Losses dont hurt, but each win helps. The winner would be the one who reached the requisite wins in the fewest games.

Right now it is a zero fun grind that many players avoid.

Losses are supposed to be punished heavily, that's how they make it that your rating stops going up, which is one of the goals. If you want to keep getting solid rating increases for wins, you have to beat even higher rated players. Or, in the less ideal case of further spread rating gaps, you have to keep up even higher win rates.

Your method would not be good, the point of your system would be to abuse weaker players so that you don't lose games. High win percentages are a bad thing, it means the pairing was awful.

Weaker players are going to lose most games regardless of what system we use. Strong players will move up regardless.

The point of a simple threshold is that at some point the weakest will make it over the number and feel success, whereas in Arena at present weak players go nowhere because losses are punished more heavily than wins are rewarded. Its demoralizing to see all one's hard earned gains get wiped out suddenly due to a couple of losses. That is why I don't play.

The current system is unpopular. Wouldn't it be better to have a friendlier system that wasnt so brutal?

Losses are punished more heavily the higher your rating. At low ratings losses are barely punished at all, and wins make your rating go up much faster. A common complaint about the current rating system is actually that it's too hard on stronger players since winning so much is penalized as much as it is. At low ratings, the system is extremely friendly, it's only as your rating goes up that things get more difficult.

BGA already had some sort of games played award, or something to that effect, in games if memory serves. Even some games won awards, streak awards, etc.

That said, rating in games is not some kind of experience award. You don't just get points for showing up and playing games, it's trying to get a gauge of your play level so you can better pair yourself against players at a level better suited for your games. Once you reach the ratings level that corresponds to how well you play that's roughly where you stay unless your playing level changes. That's the goal of rating.

[mturton]

Losses are punished more heavily the higher your rating. At low ratings losses are barely punished at all, and wins make your rating go up much faster. A common complaint about the current rating system is actually that it's too hard on stronger players since winning so much is penalized as much as it is. At low ratings, the system is extremely friendly, it's only as your rating goes up that things get more difficult.

BGA already had some sort of games played award, or something to that effect, in games if memory serves. Even some games won awards, streak awards, etc.

That said, rating in games is not some kind of experience award. You don't just get points for showing up and playing games, it's trying to get a gauge of your play level so you can better pair yourself against players at a level better suited for your games. Once you reach the ratings level that corresponds to how well you play that's roughly where you stay unless your playing level changes. That's the goal of rating.

Of course rating in games is not an experience award, no one is arguing that. The point is to do away with a rating system and let strong and weak sort it out, while not punishing weak players. The current system punishes stronger players as you note; it also punishes weaker players.

"At low ratings losses are barely punished at all"

That is not my experience of the system. At low ratings a loss or two wipes out all gains. It's why I don't play. Watching my hard-earned gains being deleted is demoralizing. Why would anyone want to put themselves through that?

What you want is a format that at least in part rewards games played and doesn't punish you for playing games, so that more people participate and there is a vigorous ecosystem. The current system is exactly the opposite of that -- the higher you climb, the more you are punished for wins, and you are punished even more savagely for losses. You are basically punished for playing no matter what you do. That's just self-defeating.

It's why a simple threshold would work better, because there is no punishment for losing, you just don't advance, and participation either has nuetral or positive rewards. Right now the awards all negative.

[Lady_Jane]

The current system is exactly the opposite of that -- the higher you climb, the more you are punished for wins, and you are punished even more savagely for losses. You are basically punished for playing no matter what you do. That's just self-defeating.

How are you punished for winning?

[maveleo]

The current system is exactly the opposite of that -- the higher you climb, the more you are punished for wins, and you are punished even more savagely for losses. You are basically punished for playing no matter what you do. That's just self-defeating.

How are you punished for winning?

You get near to 0 scores when you are high.
When you are low you get many points.
If I win against someone with ELO 200 I should always get the same points otherwise the system doesn't reflect abilities. This is true for both ELO and Arena.

[RobertBr]

If I win against someone with ELO 200 I should always get the same points otherwise the system doesn't reflect abilities.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Elo works (its named after Arpad Elo, its not an abbreviation, so you don't capitalise it). What you are suggesting is completely wrong - that you don't get the same points is why it does reflect ability.

[1000esqrtn1]

If I win against someone with ELO 200 I should always get the same points otherwise the system doesn't reflect abilities.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Elo works (its named after Arpad Elo, its not an abbreviation, so you don't capitalise it). What you are suggesting is completely wrong - that you don't get the same points is why it does reflect ability.

He has a point though, on most competitions that use ELO, ELO is not constantly updated. It shows some flaws the fact that if I play 4 consecutive games against the same player (assuming he is already medium-experienced) WWWL will always give less points than LWWW. The player is the same, it was a single play session so the outcome should be the same.

A common idea that we most agree on this topic is that Arena is too long, which difficult things like freezing ELOs. However, ELOs/Arena Points could be updated once per week/2 weeks. Hence, in that period you know how much your wins will be worth. As said, this is not new, as most Chess tournaments work like this

[Komandor Tarkin]

In my opinion current system is ok. Doesn't need major changes, just small improvements.

It is not so easy to make high ranking early in season, stop playing and be safe to win season.

First of all, it is easier to make high ranking, when opponents average ranking is higher, which occurs later in season.

Secondly, when you stop playing for longer period, you risk that someone overtake you. When you are overtaken, it is really hard to get back to top after long period without playing

[Ceaseless]

If I win against someone with ELO 200 I should always get the same points otherwise the system doesn't reflect abilities.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Elo works (its named after Arpad Elo, its not an abbreviation, so you don't capitalise it). What you are suggesting is completely wrong - that you don't get the same points is why it does reflect ability.

He has a point though, on most competitions that use ELO, ELO is not constantly updated. It shows some flaws the fact that if I play 4 consecutive games against the same player (assuming he is already medium-experienced) WWWL will always give less points than LWWW. The player is the same, it was a single play session so the outcome should be the same.

A common idea that we most agree on this topic is that Arena is too long, which difficult things like freezing ELOs. However, ELOs/Arena Points could be updated once per week/2 weeks. Hence, in that period you know how much your wins will be worth. As said, this is not new, as most Chess tournaments work like this

I'm thinking this is more of an access issue. Chess tournaments IRL may be slow on the update, but they're old and used to be even slower. On the other hand, modern rating systems in online Chess update immediately, BGA isn't unique in this regard. I've not seen anything to indicate the Chess system you refer to chose its pace for its accuracy.

[Ceaseless]

The current system is exactly the opposite of that -- the higher you climb, the more you are punished for wins, and you are punished even more savagely for losses. You are basically punished for playing no matter what you do. That's just self-defeating.

How are you punished for winning?

You get near to 0 scores when you are high.
When you are low you get many points.
If I win against someone with ELO 200 I should always get the same points otherwise the system doesn't reflect abilities. This is true for both ELO and Arena.

Under the system of gaining points for a win and losing points for a loss, the same exchanges for beating a player would lead to infinite rating. If I'm good enough to beat a player 75% of the time and lose 25% of the time, once we're both properly rated, I should lose 3 times as much rating for losing to them as I do for beating them. If there is no rating gap that is big enough to do that, my rating will endlessly increase as long as we keep playing.