Lopsided unfair scoring in Azul

[Tins the Great]

The MOST unfair scoring in arena azul that i have ever seen. Results do not warrant the uneven give and take of "stars" .

[Priptonite]

Arena scoring is based solely on the league you are your opponent are in. Both in the same league = 3 stars, one league apart = more/less stars, two leagues apart = even more or less stars. The actual score of the game doesn’t matter.

[PaperSmasher]

I beat an ELO 3 levels above me (700+) and I gained 5 stars in gold tier. I lost to someone one level above me and I lost all 5 stars. I do not understand why I lost all 5.

[FrankJones]

I beat an ELO 3 levels above me (700+) and I gained 5 stars in gold tier. I lost to someone one level above me and I lost all 5 stars. I do not understand why I lost all 5.

This was explained in the second post in this thread. Right above your post.

The amount of Arena stars you gain or lose is unrelated to the Elo of your opponent.

You are Gold and the player you lost to is Bronze. BGA's arena scoring goes only by current Arena ranking; so even though your opponent had a nearly identical Elo, you were in a higher arena tier and thus "expected" to win.

It's a really silly system at times, because early in the season, Everyone starts out Bronze, and someone who has quickly gotten to a high tier will take a massive arena loss when losing to a player who just started playing for the season, even if that player has a very high Elo.

[Ceaseless]

I beat an ELO 3 levels above me (700+) and I gained 5 stars in gold tier. I lost to someone one level above me and I lost all 5 stars. I do not understand why I lost all 5.

Except you didn't lose to someone one level above you. As a Gold, you lost to a Bronze, which is two full sets below you. You got 5 gold for winning vs an Elite. I did a quick check of the Arena leaderboard and after Elite I only saw one group between it and Gold, so Elite is only 2 sets above Gold.

So you gained 5 gold for beating someone two sets above you and lost 5 gold for losing to someone 2 sets below you. What is your issue with that?

[FrankJones]

PaperSmasher almost certainly thought the Arena tokens won or lost are related to the Elo gap.

From that vantage point, gaining 5 stars versus a 700 Elo made sense, but losing 5 stars versus a 200 Elo didn't make sense.

For those familiar with the arena system, it makes sense.

When I play Arena, I don't even check what my opponent's Arena ranking is. I check the Elo and play. (I typically play Arena games that have only 3 tires, sometimes only 2, so this rarely affects my results anyway.)

[PaperSmasher]

I beat an ELO 3 levels above me (700+) and I gained 5 stars in gold tier. I lost to someone one level above me and I lost all 5 stars. I do not understand why I lost all 5.

Except you didn't lose to someone one level above you. As a Gold, you lost to a Bronze, which is two full sets below you. You got 5 gold for winning vs an Elite. I did a quick check of the Arena leaderboard and after Elite I only saw one group between it and Gold, so Elite is only 2 sets above Gold.

So you gained 5 gold for beating someone two sets above you and lost 5 gold for losing to someone 2 sets below you. What is your issue with that?

My issue is that I did not get to pick who I played against. I own the fact that I didn't know that recognize the gap in the arena level granted the award/loss level, I do see that here.

[Ceaseless]

I beat an ELO 3 levels above me (700+) and I gained 5 stars in gold tier. I lost to someone one level above me and I lost all 5 stars. I do not understand why I lost all 5.

Except you didn't lose to someone one level above you. As a Gold, you lost to a Bronze, which is two full sets below you. You got 5 gold for winning vs an Elite. I did a quick check of the Arena leaderboard and after Elite I only saw one group between it and Gold, so Elite is only 2 sets above Gold.

So you gained 5 gold for beating someone two sets above you and lost 5 gold for losing to someone 2 sets below you. What is your issue with that?

My issue is that I did not get to pick who I played against. I own the fact that I didn't know that recognize the gap in the arena level granted the award/loss level, I do see that here.

You get Arena filters, so as far as avoiding pairing under such Arena gaps, yes, you did get a say. As for choosing to be paired or not vs specific players, of course you don't get to cancel. This is to avoid intentionally rigging the system. We can't have someone going into Arena and only bullying players for easy wins while dodging any legitimate games.

Though your initial objection was about your Arena gains/losses, so this sudden statement is coming a bit out of left field. There was no mention of issues with being paired vs the player(s) in your previous posts.

[PaperSmasher]

Except you didn't lose to someone one level above you. As a Gold, you lost to a Bronze, which is two full sets below you. You got 5 gold for winning vs an Elite. I did a quick check of the Arena leaderboard and after Elite I only saw one group between it and Gold, so Elite is only 2 sets above Gold.

So you gained 5 gold for beating someone two sets above you and lost 5 gold for losing to someone 2 sets below you. What is your issue with that?

My issue is that I did not get to pick who I played against. I own the fact that I didn't know that recognize the gap in the arena level granted the award/loss level, I do see that here.

You get Arena filters, so as far as avoiding pairing under such Arena gaps, yes, you did get a say. As for choosing to be paired or not vs specific players, of course you don't get to cancel. This is to avoid intentionally rigging the system. We can't have someone going into Arena and only bullying players for easy wins while dodging any legitimate games.

Though your initial objection was about your Arena gains/losses, so this sudden statement is coming a bit out of left field. There was no mention of issues with being paired vs the player(s) in your previous posts.

It's fine, I'll live. Not trying to rig the system, just trying to be informed and understand. I'll scour the instructions better next time to discover things like arena filters and reward levels for beating or losing to unknown arena ranks.

[Ceaseless]

My issue is that I did not get to pick who I played against. I own the fact that I didn't know that recognize the gap in the arena level granted the award/loss level, I do see that here.

You get Arena filters, so as far as avoiding pairing under such Arena gaps, yes, you did get a say. As for choosing to be paired or not vs specific players, of course you don't get to cancel. This is to avoid intentionally rigging the system. We can't have someone going into Arena and only bullying players for easy wins while dodging any legitimate games.

Though your initial objection was about your Arena gains/losses, so this sudden statement is coming a bit out of left field. There was no mention of issues with being paired vs the player(s) in your previous posts.

It's fine, I'll live. Not trying to rig the system, just trying to be informed and understand. I'll scour the instructions better next time to discover things like arena filters and reward levels for beating or losing to unknown arena ranks.

Generally a rating system, whether it's for our elo, or the arena points, is set to rig the game in favor of the weaker player so that the game's rating is distributed 50-50. In other words, if you face someone much stronger, the rating is rigged so that for the weaker player it's low risk and high reward in proportion to their expected rate of failure. In other words, rating is designed so that you never gain or lose points in the long run, all other things being equal over time. Of course, players do change over time, so with their relative change in performance comes a change in their expected rating, and afterwards then they're meant to stay at that new value. There will be short-term fluctuations, but in the long run you stay where you are. Of course with each new Arena reset you have to recalibrate these things, and if the format changes so to might your relative skill, but the general ideas doesn't change. It is harder to effective calculate larger skill gaps through head to head pairings though, plus players probably like more even games to be used for their performance, so rating filters per format are still helpful.