BGA has a serious bully problem

[Gooorn]

I think one problem is, some people use the newer (and poorly designed) game page to create new games and tables, which has less intuitive and less user-friendly game setting options.
On the other hand, the older "play now" screen has clear and easy filters to use.

I agree! (I think game servers can't handle the older "play now" screen, thats why BGA hides the old one and forces the new.)

And i think reform (or remove) the ELO system would help too. Other statistics, for example number of played games or won games would help more to create more balanced tables. (i mean players with similar experience level of the game)

[FrankJones]

I think one problem is, some people use the newer (and poorly designed) game page to create new games and tables, which has less intuitive and less user-friendly game setting options.
On the other hand, the older "play now" screen has clear and easy filters to use.

I agree! (I think game servers can't handle the older "play now" screen, thats why BGA hides the old one and forces the new.)

And i think reform (or remove) the ELO system would help too. Other statistics, for example number of played games or won games would help more to create more balanced tables. (i mean players with similar experience level of the game)

Well... the old "play now" screen isn't well hidden.


It's the bookmarked page I click on whenever I load up a BGA page.

[BarnardsStar]

Also, your analogy here is terrible. BGA wouldn’t let you make an illegal move, like picking up the ball with your hands.

You can pick up the ball with your hands in a game of football.

In certain circumstances, as you pointed out (goaltender, throw-ins). Just as in chess you can move a pawn forward in certain circumstances (its initial move), but BGA only allows you to do it in those circumstances. So your analogy is still terrible.

[tbhp]

Even if there was a way for people to play coop games only with people of similar level, there would still be bullies. If anything, people might get even more angry when it's someone who is supposed to know how to play who makes a bad move (or a move they disagree with).

[FSKFSK]

The problem with the ELO rating system is that it was designed for no-luck games like Chess, where a much better player almost always wins.

There are lots of games that have a substantial luck component. There are many games where someone who knows the basic strategy will win 30%-45% of the time, even against a much better player. Examples are Jump Drive and Abandon All Artichokes. For a luck-based game, if you play someone with a much lower elo, you will on average lose rating, even if you are the better player.

I.e., in chess, if you aren't a grandmaster and you player against a grandmaster, you lose almost all the time. For a luck-based game, you can play against a top player and still win 30%-45% of the time.

[FrankJones]

The problem with the ELO rating system is that it was designed for no-luck games like Chess, where a much better player almost always wins.

There are lots of games that have a substantial luck component. There are many games where someone who knows the basic strategy will win 30%-45% of the time, even against a much better player. Examples are Jump Drive and Abandon All Artichokes. For a luck-based game, if you play someone with a much lower elo, you will on average lose rating, even if you are the better player.

I.e., in chess, if you aren't a grandmaster and you player against a grandmaster, you lose almost all the time. For a luck-based game, you can play against a top player and still win 30%-45% of the time.

That's the nature of luck-based games (such as Artichoke).

It doesn't mean there is a flaw in the Elo system.

I play lots of games where luck is a low factor (and some where luck is a high factor). The less luck involved, the more likely the better players win. And those games typically have higher top-end Elos.

[FSKFSK]

It is a flaw. The elo gain/loss is determined by a probability distribution based on the difference in player's ratings. For luck-based games, they should use a different probability distribution, one with a lower cap.

Elo says that a 400 rating point difference means a 90% chance of winning, with no cap.

For a luck-based game, it should be a number smaller than 90% and there should be a cap.

[FrankJones]

It is a flaw. The elo gain/loss is determined by a probability distribution based on the difference in player's ratings. For luck-based games, they should use a different probability distribution, one with a lower cap.

Elo says that a 400 rating point difference means a 90% chance of winning, with no cap.

For a luck-based game, it should be a number smaller than 90% and there should be a cap.

Games with very high luck don't have a 400 ELo difference.

Spades, Open face Chinese poker, and Euchre don't have any players rated 400. Very few hearts players are rated 400.

[MarkSteere]

ChatGPT ..

The problem isn’t Elo’s arithmetic; it’s its assumptions. Elo assumes that greater skill differences always translate into higher win probabilities, approaching certainty. For luck-based games, that’s simply false.

A rating system for such games should use a different probability distribution—one with a lower slope and a hard cap on expected win rate—so that rating differences reflect skill advantage, not illusory certainty.

[FrankJones]

How would that be determined?

For example, Open-face Chinese poker. What formula should be used?