🌿ELO System Updates

[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.

ELO isn't a prize or a badge of honor. ELO ratings serve as a tool to gauge relative skill levels and find well-matched opponents, not a measure of personal worth. Focus on enjoying the games, learning from your opponents, and refining your strategies to become a true board game master!

We're always listening to your feedback and working to make Board Game Arena the best place to play. Keep those messages coming!

I'm really confused. They took away messages about elo achievements awhile back. They also stopped posting players arena awards to their newsfeed. But then they create an entire new homepage that emphasizes our xp which is typically an indication of ones elo/ arena success. So which is it? Are these things a "badge of honor" or not?

[h_illes]

I have some actual news for everyone - thanks to BROT42, who didn't want to directly post here, so this isn't really official, but it still comes from someone at BGA. So the situation is that while they are not completely satisfied with the ELO situation, they are satisfied enough that they do not want to change it in the foreseeable future, and direct their resources elsewhere. Which would be an acceptable stance if (a) it was communicated clearly, (b) the entire problematic situation wasn't the result of effort spent to make things worse. Which just show how incompetent BGA management is.

Even though this is not good news, it is more than whatever came from lordalx, despite his promises. At least now we know what (not) to expect.

Keep in mind that the ONLY performance measure of any service is the user experience. With that in mind, BGA failed horribly with the ELO modifications. You have no excuse for the gross incompetence put on display here.

[The Nuzzer]

Thanks for the update, even if it is via back channels.

[KenFin1]

They've now removed the ELO score in hardback from even the old lobby page. It's only a measure of skill and development you see, so even having it displayed privately in this one page is no longer acceptable. They can find time to edit the code to remove it from there, but not to address the concerns and issues of players raised in this lengthy feedback. Yup, my money is staying in my pocket.

[RazorOz]

The element I don't think is being understood is you've created an environment where players don't want to mass play real-time anymore.

There's two problems with this, #1 is it leads to less real time games firing, because a small % of the player base will be a responsible for a good % of the traffic, and they're the ones most affected by the changes. #2 It gives turn based players an advantage, because they are less affected by these changes.

It's hard to see how a system that discourages players from actually playing is creating a healthy ecosystem.

At a bare minimum the reducer either needs to be linked to # of games you've played since you last played the player in question, or the time on it needs to be drastically reduced, because 28, 30 days, whatever it is way too long.

[GTSchemer]

The element I don't think is being understood is you've created an environment where players don't want to mass play real-time anymore.

I don't know how much the elo changes affect real-time play -- maybe some at high levels.

I've personally felt like real-time games became MUCH harder to find shortly after the new lobby was introduced. I imagine we will never know, because the number of turn-based vs. real-time games is not publicly reported to my knowledge.

[RazorOz]

I don't know how much the elo changes affect real-time play -- maybe some at high levels.

I've personally felt like real-time games became MUCH harder to find shortly after the new lobby was introduced. I imagine we will never know, because the number of turn-based vs. real-time games is not publicly reported to my knowledge.

By definition it's only going to affect the high levels, as they're the players most affected by these changes.

But those players are also often the most active players, the ones that actually start the games, disincentivise them to play like what's happened and you get less games.

Then you have the other aspect that you're encouraging other actions that reduce activity, the most obvious being people are now encouraged to red thumb someone, purely because playing them is not in their interests when they can only lose ELO, not gain ELO. Is that really the sort of activity we want to be encouraging? How can it possibly be healthy for the site.

[GTSchemer]

By definition it's only going to affect the high levels, as they're the players most affected by these changes.

But those players are also often the most active players, the ones that actually start the games, disincentivise them to play like what's happened and you get less games.

Then you have the other aspect that you're encouraging other actions that reduce activity, the most obvious being people are now encouraged to red thumb someone, purely because playing them is not in their interests when they can only lose ELO, not gain ELO. Is that really the sort of activity we want to be encouraging? How can it possibly be healthy for the site.

I don't think it is healthy for the site or community, but I have to assume either A) it doesn't significantly affect the number of paying users, B) it doesn't significantly affect the number of active games, or C) neither factor A nor B are a priority.

I don't see any reason to believe management would make a change unless there were a significant shift in user base. If that does occur I'm also not sure if it can be corrected fast enough to save the community, but I hope it can.

[ChiefPointThief]

So the situation is that while they are not completely satisfied with the ELO situation, they are satisfied enough that they do not want to change it in the foreseeable future, and direct their resources elsewhere.

I came to this realization in early Jan. and figured I would have to accept this new terrible system. If bga was going to advocate red thumbing ppl after you played with them a few times they should've at least used their resources to create a new temp red thumb. I shouldn't have to keep track of who I red thumbed for this purpose. Another issue for me about this whole thing is that almost all the info surrounding these changes were found out by us. I'm actually uncertain when the reset happens at this point. At 1 point it was a month. I believe someone said it was a week at one point. They didn't tell us how much the penalties would be. Nor were they upfront about elo calculation visibility.

It was also mentioned several times that it was unfair for the winner to receive 100% loss while having the consecutive win penalty in place and that the k factor should be adjusted prior to the game no matter the outcome. If bga claims the penalty was put in place to prevent cheating then their goals would still be achieved by doing this. Instead of listening to their users who were willing to compromise w/ the new flawed system and provided them w/ better alternatives they decided to disregard their users and used more resources to double down on their already terrible new system.

#2 It gives turn based players an advantage, because they are less affected by these changes.

I don't know why you said this but it is very bad for tb as well. If I open 3 tables and get the same person in all of them I now have to block them if I win all 3. Considering I am a good player this is very possible almost every time. If I lose a game most likely it is still bad depending on the difference in elo. In this system it is actually impossible to get your elo back from that player no matter how many times you beat them after a loss. Also in real time I may be able to see an opponent at my table and decline if I want to but in order to avoid someone in tb you must red thumb them.

[RazorOz]

I don't think it is healthy for the site or community, but I have to assume either A) it doesn't significantly affect the number of paying users, B) it doesn't significantly affect the number of active games, or C) neither factor A nor B are a priority.

I don't see any reason to believe management would make a change unless there were a significant shift in user base. If that does occur I'm also not sure if it can be corrected fast enough to save the community, but I hope it can.

The second part is the problem with determining answers to the first questions though, that if you go purely by that measure, by the time you realise it, it's way too late. Most the people affected by this are on yearly subscriptions so it could take a long time to be reflected in subs. But generally, if you wait until you realise the rot has set in, it's too late.

I don't know why you said this but it is very bad for tb as well. If I open 3 tables and get the same person in all of them I now have to block them if I win all 3. Considering I am a good player this is very possible almost every time. If I lose a game most likely it is still bad depending on the difference in elo. In this system it is actually impossible to get your elo back from that player no matter how many times you beat them after a loss. Also in real time I may be able to see an opponent at my table and decline if I want to but in order to avoid someone in tb you must red thumb them.

Oh, it's definitely bad for turn based, it's just less bad than it is for real time. It definitely hurts doing what you say for that reason, which is why I avoid setting up all my turn-based games at once for that reason. But still real-time you play a lot more games, maybe for the players who are playing 100+ of the same game at once turn-based will play a similar number, but there's very few doing that all of the same game. Also, I guess what game it is also affects the impact, quicker games are going to be even worse, at least in my primary game it takes nearly an hour to play real-time, 4-5 days turn-based even if you set to a fast setting, there's plenty of games though that can be played 4x quicker than that, I'm sure H_Illes can demonstrate, because Century is a much faster game.