ELO SYSTEM

[Jest Phulin]

- If someone doesn't play during 30 days then he should lose his rank.

Yes. Because chess champions have to defend their titles only once every year. As do boxers. As do members of virtually every other sport. And, obviously, one's skill at a game will drop to zero after 30 days.

Also, Doodads, looking at your last Caylus game ( #10676970), this took 355 turns. So, if playing turn-based, 1 move per day, it would have taken close to a year to finish. What do you do with the time requirement then? Say that since the game was started over 30 days ago, you aren't playing? Require someone to play 12 games at once, starting one every month, so there's always one starting within 30 days? Then, what about if you are ranked on 5 games? Do you have to have 60 games going to keep ranking? At just 4 minutes to analyze the board and decide on a new move, that suddenly becomes 4 hours a day, every day. Is that what you are suggesting needs to be done?

As far as the "more than xxx ELO difference doesn't count" idea. What happens if the lower ranked person wins? Do they not get credit for defeating someone who should be much better than them?

[Claude Chabrol]

- If he wants to get his rank back then he has to play someone with elo gap smaller than 500 and elo active.

According to your request, it means that ickoicko (elo 2601) could only play with 5 players to get his ranking back. This suggestion seems inapplicable to me.

- If someone play against opponent with 500 elo gap or more then no elo involved.

Same remark, all Experts(1800) and some Masters(2000) would not even be allowed to earn points against ickoicko, according to your suggestion


@Doodads : tu devrais vraiment essayer d'autres jeux, tu t'apercevrais par toi-même que le délai de 30 jours au lieu de 60 est vraiment trop court si tu te débrouilles dans plusieurs jeux. et en tour par tour tu n'as aucune garantie de finir une partie en moins d'un mois, essaie par toi-même. ta requête part d'une bonne intention, mais elle n'est pas applicable

[Doodads]

Also, Doodads, looking at your last Caylus game ( #10676970), this took 355 turns. So, if playing turn-based, 1 move per day, it would have taken close to a year to finish. What do you do with the time requirement then? Say that since the game was started over 30 days ago, you aren't playing? Require someone to play 12 games at once, starting one every month, so there's always one starting within 30 days? Then, what about if you are ranked on 5 games? Do you have to have 60 games going to keep ranking? At just 4 minutes to analyze the board and decide on a new move, that suddenly becomes 4 hours a day, every day. Is that what you are suggesting needs to be done?

That's theory. According to what you wrote, you mean at the moment it is 2 hours a day, every day.
I played turn based games, it was over in few days.

As far as the "more than xxx ELO difference doesn't count" idea. What happens if the lower ranked person wins? Do they not get credit for defeating someone who should be much better than them?

Not giving them elo encourages people to play closer levels players and then lead to improvment.
If you play someone who is far stronger than you you can't even understand what is good or not, and if you beat him, it means that you don't have your real elo and then it's unfair for opponent.
So in my opinion it's just better to automatically turn elo off when gap is bigger than 500.
This way it makes ranking more accurate.

According to your request, it means that ickoicko (elo 2601) could only play with 5 players to get his ranking back. This suggestion seems inapplicable to me.

It's already this way. He's playing only few players, less than 5. It's not fun for him to play other players, they are too weak.

Same remark, all Experts(1800) and some Masters(2000) would not even be allowed to earn points against ickoicko, according to your suggestion

Same answer, he doesn't want to play with them, they're too weak.
It's far more interesting to play players with closer level. There is no point for a 1800 elo to play a 2600, the gap is so big that he can't even understand what is happening.
I also stopped to play people under 2000 because it's super boring.

@Doodads : tu devrais vraiment essayer d'autres jeux, tu t'apercevrais par toi-même que le délai de 30 jours au lieu de 60 est vraiment trop court si tu te débrouilles dans plusieurs jeux. et en tour par tour tu n'as aucune garantie de finir une partie en moins d'un mois, essaie par toi-même. ta requête part d'une bonne intention, mais elle n'est pas applicable

I already tried and played turn based games and despite the fact you say it can't be finished in less than 30 days, it was ended in 3, 4 days, sometimes less than 3.

[deszczyk]

I agree with Sabian80.
If the game is designed for more people, then playing two people is only increasing his ELO.
The arguments of Doodas not make sense.
He can only play in one game and to do so in a very stripped-down version for two people.
Had you ever learned to play in a real verse would not be writing such nonsense.
Unfortunately, he always firmly refuses to ensure that anyone taught him to play, because he cares only for ELO, and the proposal to join the real version always has a convoluted explanation.
In addition, his arguments apply only double puzzle games, which, by the BGA there is not too much.
In other cases, a complete gibberish.
Doodas, learn how to play even one game for BGA and then a saying.

[deszczyk]

In addition, on other platforms, if the game is on more people, there is a double game wogule are not taken into account when counting ELO.
And then what would you say Doodas.
What would be then your ELO?

[Doodads]

First Deszczyk, you could try to spell people names correctly.

Because i only play caylus on bga you think i never played any other game ?
Please stop talking like you knew how to play "real caylus" version.
What is real version ?
You almost all the time play bad players like hiddendragon do.
Some examples of your recent 3 players ( i suppose "real caylus") games :

http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14246337 1991 1402 1720
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14203643 1985 1358 1506
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=13890245 1982 1537 1869
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=13884342 1916 1968 1525 (here there is a 1900+ elo and you lost)
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=13583477 1978 1460 1471
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=13331444 1969 1443 1417
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=13275878 1967 1485 1446
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=12951422 1958 1527 1367
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=12601822 1943 1949 1360 (here there is a 1900+ elo and you lost)
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=12542356 1965 1538 1358
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=12527006 1961 1508 1474

Despite the lot of time you insulted me, calling me noob and coward using chat and pm, i invited you several time to play 1v1 caylus against me but you said you don't play 1v1 caylus.
Exept maybe against super weak players ?

http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14260673 1993 1444
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14096233 1983 1080 (lol)
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=13795611 1985 1621
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=13383792 1975 1452
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=13631222 1980 1449

You are the one who wants elo at all cost, you even created several accounts (germar, sloneczo, Wizioner, deszcz, oak,.. ) you used to boost your elo playing against yourself before being banished rofl
That's pathetic.

What i say is very annoying for people like you who play for elo and stats.
All cowards are going to whine like you do because you would be very annoyed if elo was balanced.

Here are the last games you played deszczyk, not only caylus :

http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14268890 1769 1489
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14267084 2048 1630
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14266861 2045 1642
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14266728 2041 1497
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14266309 2039 1391
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14265860 1592 1466
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14265346 1569 1489
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14264899 1517 1541
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14263481 2070 1452
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14262985 2043 1497
http://fr.boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=14262444 2069 1498

The question is :

Does bga prefer to reward good players, or mass bad games players ?
My opinion is still the same, imho focus on quality is better than focus on quantity.

[Faignantix]

The debate between 30 and 60 days seems to be pointless since there is no limit at all right now.
The top 10 begin to be crowded with people that don't play anymore for a long time...
Does someone has any news about this bug?

[sourisdudesert]

Does someone has any news about this bug?

Yes I have.

Following your remarks on this post, we introduced on May 5th 2 changes in ELO system (see here: http://forum.boardgamearena.com/viewtop ... =10&t=5227).

I think everyone agreed that these changes goes into the right direction.

However these changes introduced a temporary bug in the "60 days limit" system. I you played a game between March 5th and May 5th, then the system consider you played a game on May 5th. In the worst (theoretical) case, if your last game was on March 5th, this can allow you to remains in the leader board during 120 days. Obviously, after July 5th, this "bug" will disappear automatically.

About the debate: please remember that there is obviously no ideal solution. Some solutions may obviously be better for some players and/or for some games and/or for some particular situations (even in professional sports: I've nothing against the Belgium football team but there are currently ranked #2 on the world FIFA ranking). With the current system I'm obviously not sure that the #1 at one game is the "absolutely best player", but I'm 100% sure that this is a really really good player. And that's why ranking exists

[Faignantix]

Ok, thank you very much for the quick answer and the explaination of the bug.
We just have to wait a few days so that everything goes back to normal, that's good news.

I agree that the recent changes went into the right direction and also that it is very hard to find a good rating system, especially when it has to work for many games. (I always found the FIFA ranking very strange...)

Concerning Caylus, I am totally sure that the #1 is the absolute best player. However I'm not sure that all masters are very good. And actually, it's hard to know, since some of them systematically refuse to play with opponents better than 1600. At least, it will be harder to raise to 2000 with this technique in the future.

[Oso]

Ok, thank you very much for the quick answer and the explaination of the bug.
We just have to wait a few days so that everything goes back to normal, that's good news.

I agree that the recent changes went into the right direction and also that it is very hard to find a good rating system, especially when it has to work for many games. (I always found the FIFA ranking very strange...)

Concerning Caylus, I am totally sure that the #1 is the absolute best player. However I'm not sure that all masters are very good. And actually, it's hard to know, since some of them systematically refuse to play with opponents better than 1600. At least, it will be harder to raise to 2000 with this technique in the future.

Well, it depends really.

Below 1600, people try to play with the same level.
When you pass this ELO, people only play with very nUbs (like 1300, or newbies), or people with similar or more ELO (example, 1700).

This system is the same for Experts and Masters. People with +1550 and more than 50 games, knows how to play and isn't so easy beat.

A match with 1600 against 2000 player, the ELO count is (+36/-4) for the 1600 player and (+4/-36) for the 2000 player. So, if you play with a good player (really, lot of +1600 are good), you will be exposed to loss 36 ELO with a good player for get a simply 4 ELO.