Rating discussion

[quietmint]

In all of our adaptations, we use negative numbers to indicate a loss, zero to indicate a tie, and a positive number to indicate a win. It's been discussed throughout the thread, so I won't rehash it here. We will not be deviating from that, but I will cordially welcome you to implement it differently on your adaptations if you feel strongly about it.

"In all our adaptions" answer doesn't make any sense. There is "all" one adaption of Daybreak. If you refer to other games, they have no bearing on the conversation at all because every board game has a different scoring system. It matters not whatever any other game does? As ufm has said, co-op is a completely different animal/category.

The question at hand is really a different one: What's the purpose or intent of ELO on a co-op game like Daybreak? What should it indicate to other players? Since it exists, what good can it do? I don't think it's possible to accurately convey an individual's "skill" at a co-op game with a single ELO number, so I think the best thing ELO can do for us is convey something more akin to "experience" or "familiarity" with the game.

As noted earlier in this thread and in my reply on the suggestion ticket, I'm open to constructive suggestions (i.e. "here's what I would tweak"). I'll take this complaint as a vote to revert back to the previous, simpler system.

No, I believe I provided a clear, constructive suggestion. Lose = 0. Win = a sliding scale based on game difficulty (whatever new scale you came up with seems good enough).

If this world has only two options (keep the new or go back to the old), then absolutely 100% go back to the old. But that's not the world we live in, right?

[Kayvon]

"In all our adaptions" answer doesn't make any sense. There is "all" one adaption of Daybreak.

If you're intentionally trying to misunderstand, that's fine. If not, I mean all the the adaptations that I have done with my codesigner ("our adaptations"). We've adapted 16 released games on BGA, plus more that are in development. I always use negative to mean a loss, zero to mean a tie, and positive to mean a win. If you've read the rest of the thread, you've seen that it's not up for debate. Again, if you disagree I would cordially recommend that you can use a different system when you adapt games for BGA.

It seems like you're more interested in arguing, so I'll politely bow out of the conversation at this point. You're welcome to have the last word here and jab at me about how much you disagree.

[Jellby]

I always use negative to mean a loss, zero to mean a tie, and positive to mean a win.

Are you both talking about the same thing? One thing is the final score in a game, where negative means a loss, and that's common throughout BGA. Another thing is the elo change after a game finishes (which is typically negative after a loss, but many co-op games choose to just make it zero, or even +1).

[quietmint]

In co-op games, unless you build a "bot" like Hanabi, your final score IS your change in ELO. Majority of co-op games on BGA use zero as the final score for a loss (so you're not punished for losing). I never heard of any game besides Daybreak that uses a regressive scale like this where you get punished more severely for a loss on higher difficulty settings. Such a design is completely impossible in normal competitive games and only possible here because of this BGA quirk in co-op where ELO = final score. (In competitive games, a loss has nothing to do with the game settings/difficulty.)

Note that BGA-wide, ELO also has some special rules - for example, first game always awards at least 1, and before you reach 100 you'll never lose ELO. This may be why your see ELO increase in some cases when losing a game, for example.

[Jellby]

Note that BGA-wide, ELO also has some special rules - for example, first game always awards at least 1, and before you reach 100 you'll never lose ELO. This may be why your see ELO increase in some cases when losing a game, for example.

I was thinking specifically about The Crew, where every game gives +1, no matter how many missions you play, or the results. At least it used to be like that last time I played.

About losing points on a loss, I think it's reasonable. It's not reasonable that you lose more for higher difficulty. If you're not going to lose points even if you fail, then just give a flat +1, +10 or +100 for each game (won or lost) and call it a day.

[Romain672]

I think 'Solar Storm' is/was giving +x/-x elo from victory or defeat.
But I don't like it neither.

[ufm]

I think 'Solar Storm' is/was giving +x/-x elo from victory or defeat.
But I don't like it neither.

Solar Storm does not emulate artificial ELO anymore. It's already been years.

I'm not against the current rating calculation of BGA Daybreak for two reasons:

- For solo or cooperative games, the developer has the right to decide their own rating system.
In fact, I'm the first dev who tried 'no rating change on losses, flat +X rating on wins according to the game difficulty' on BGA:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24363
And some still might not admit it, but actually most players liked this system, and it became the new norm.
For guys who don't believe this: just compare the number of bug reports and moderations regarding rating across solo/co-op games.
If enough users prefer the 'risk and reward' approach, then other devs might adopt this as well, who knows?

- Sufficiently experienced players can increase their rating faster.
If this game were too hard and the win rate were around 50% even for the best players, this approach would have been failed for obvious reasons.
Fortunately, Daybreak is not THAT hard.
Just don't forget turning friendly mode on if you want to train someone or you don't feel confident.

[quietmint]

I think we need a reset on this discussion.

My understanding of this conversation is we're providing suggestions of how we think the scoring should work.

I'd be curious to hear how people think the scoring should be calculated across all variants of the game.

I've implemented a varying scale of VP based on several factors. These may be adjusted going forward, so feel free to recommend other values for the gains and losses.

But then the developer basically said the exact opposite, that there's only the old way (flat +/-1) or the new way (unclear what this actually is) and they're not entertaining suggestions to make changes. (I don't understand the developer's use of the word "system" at all.)

I will not be implementing an entirely different system, so any suggestions that a different system is preferred to the new one will be counted as a vote to return to the old one.

It seems this discussion has morphed into some kind of vote. I don't want my "vote" counted yet at all under any camp. I'm not even clear I understand what the options are. I'm not sure what I'm "voting" for, and I'm not sure what, if anything, the developer is willing to entertain in terms of changes before said "vote".

But the bottom line is the newly implement scoring system does not match what the developer explained. So before any "votes" are counted, 1) can we correctly describe the new scoring system (with a table, or examples, or something), and 2) can we implement that new scoring system and try it out for a bit to see how it works? Whatever is currently implemented now is not the old system and it's not what was described, so I don't know how to assess it. [ See separate thread https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37952 ]

---

I'm excited to see some kind of change, because I don't think a flat 1 point per game makes sense -- for example, this player has 186 ranked games, 124 victories, and their ELO is exactly 100 ("Average"). After more than 100 victories, this player should probably be a "Master" or at least "Expert". Maybe a simple flat 5 - 10 points per game would be enough of a fix for this whole thing.

[Kayvon]

I will not be implementing an entirely different system, so any suggestions that a different system is preferred to the new one will be counted as a vote to return to the old one.

It seems this discussion has morphed into some kind of vote. I don't want my "vote" counted yet at all under any camp. I'm not even clear I understand what the options are.

The intent of my statement was to emphasize that while I may be open to tweaking the individual values, I will not participate in the endless harassment that you've flung my way over the course of the past two days. If people want to complain, I can just change it back. I've already taken you complaints as a "vote" for returning to the old system. Further critique is unnecessary.

I'm not sure what your obsession is here. I've repeatedly asked for you to lay off, but you've undertaken a crusade to criticize my every action over the course of several forum threads and multiple bug reports.

I've tried to be kind, but you've escalated it to harassment. Please stop. Further complaints from your account on Daybreak will be reported and otherwise ignored.