No E.L.O.

[Dan Saul Knight]

Why is it that every now and then no E.L.O. is earned. The only thing I can connect it to is it's against players I have played on quite a few occasions.

[Meeplelowda]

Why is it that every now and then no E.L.O. is earned. The only thing I can connect it to is it's against players I have played on quite a few occasions.

Yes, the Elo reduction for consecutive wins has been a thing since December 2023:

→ Power levelling
We encountered many situations of power levelling, linked to multi accounts, even if we are still fighting against such practices, it became obvious that the current system might encourage it.
To prevent this, any consecutive wins against the same opponent will reduce the amount of ELO points awarded from this victory. This reduction will be gradually higher as more consecutive wins are accumulated. This way, we encourage you to challenge other players to keep the original spirit of the ELO: show your skill at a game compared to the whole community, not just the same ones.

[Cedroc92]

This rule should not apply on arena mode, since opponents are random.

[Jellby]

By the way, Elo is a name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo) not an acronym, so no dots, please.

[Jokrasa]

This rule should not apply on arena mode, since opponents are random.

Yeah, especially cause if u have like 500 points more than your opponent, you need to win 19/20 just to keep your Elo, but the system basically forces you to lose in the long run especially in games with low player counts...

But BGA doesn't care, there are 1000 replies on the thread where they announced the reworked system about both this and other stuff and they just stopped responding

[Jellby]

[Yeah, especially cause if u have like 500 points more than your opponent, you need to win 19/20 just to keep your Elo

If you need that win rate to keep your elo, it means if your elo is accurate you'll have that win rate, nothing to worry about. If you don't get that win rate, it's because your elo (or at least the elo difference) is too high and should be adjusted down.

[Jokrasa]

[Yeah, especially cause if u have like 500 points more than your opponent, you need to win 19/20 just to keep your Elo

If you need that win rate to keep your elo, it means if your elo is accurate you'll have that win rate, nothing to worry about. If you don't get that win rate, it's because your elo (or at least the elo difference) is too high and should be adjusted down.

Yeah I know, but this anti-power-levelling rule makes it literally impossible to win 19/20 (at least to gain the points for it). You gain reduced Elo per game when you have a winning streak against a player, after 6 consecutive wins you no longer win any elo at all (it does not matter if you play other players in between).
So I can only win 1 normal game, 1 where I gain I gain 95% of normal Elo, then 80%, 60%, 40%, 0%, 0%, 0%... leading to it being literally impossible to keep your elo when playing against lowerrated opponents, because I would need to win 19/20 normal games, but BGA only gives me points for 3-4 full games before capping it... So if I win 9999 games in a row, then lose 1, then win 9999 again, I will still lose Elo because the BGA Elo system will only give me points for 8 wins but deduct the full loss

[Ceaseless]

[Yeah, especially cause if u have like 500 points more than your opponent, you need to win 19/20 just to keep your Elo

If you need that win rate to keep your elo, it means if your elo is accurate you'll have that win rate, nothing to worry about. If you don't get that win rate, it's because your elo (or at least the elo difference) is too high and should be adjusted down.

There are some extra things to consider.

• The consecutive wins penalty messes some of this up.

• I don't think elo consistency holds up well with larger gaps. If A beats B 3/4 of the time, B beats C 3/4 of the time, and C beats D 3/4 of the time, that doesn't necessarily mean A beats D 27/64 of the time. You hit natural ceilings, such as luck factor giving a minimal win somewhere that's inevitable regardless of the skill gap at a certain point, or when the skill gap is so vast there is no covering it. It probably varies game by game, but as you push the extremes things get fuzzier.

[Wistama]

Apologies if this is threadjacking, but I have a related question about Elo ratings. It appears to me, as a new player, that once a player reaches 100, his or her rating is not permitted to drop below that number, regardless of game outcomes. In a game just concluded, I gained some points for the win, but my opponent, rated 100, lost none. Is my understanding correct?

If so, it introduces an inaccuracy. Suppose my opponent’s true playing strength was only 50. If his or her rating had been 50, then my win would have gained fewer points than what I actually got. An artificial floor of 100 means that I was over-rewarded.

The consecutive-wins penalty slightly mitigates the problem. If I keep whaling on the same overrated opponent, my unjust rewards will diminish. Still, am I right in thinking that there’s a floor of 100 (presumably with the goal of not hurting people’s feelings), and that this rule distorts the ratings?

[Cournot]

Apologies if this is threadjacking, but I have a related question about Elo ratings. It appears to me, as a new player, that once a player reaches 100, his or her rating is not permitted to drop below that number, regardless of game outcomes. In a game just concluded, I gained some points for the win, but my opponent, rated 100, lost none. Is my understanding correct?

If so, it introduces an inaccuracy. Suppose my opponent’s true playing strength was only 50. If his or her rating had been 50, then my win would have gained fewer points than what I actually got. An artificial floor of 100 means that I was over-rewarded.

The consecutive-wins penalty slightly mitigates the problem. If I keep whaling on the same overrated opponent, my unjust rewards will diminish. Still, am I right in thinking that there’s a floor of 100 (presumably with the goal of not hurting people’s feelings), and that this rule distorts the ratings?

You are right, but in no way this is related to the consecutive wins problem.