BGA has a serious bully problem

[Ceaseless]

Real-time and turn based games modes are the ones available.

You honestly couldn't tell from context (when they contrasted with tournament and Arena), that they were talking about Real-time and turn based in "Simple game" mode?

No, because real time and turn-based have no connection to that sort of comparison. They're spread into all of the games, so a statement to that effect isn't going to make me think of any group in particular, since those are universal modes on BGA. I can't make any sense of that post, even going with your assumption. We have these ambiguous "system that pairs players of similar strength" and "ranking system" phrases that don't really draw out any clear meanings the way they're being used here. They're being described as unique things, when they're just standard purposes that elo is also known to cover, while they're simultaneously seemingly criticizing elo.

[Romain672]

I read half of this post and checked fastly all of it.

About the elo and the % of victory with the difference of elo, I find the k-factor great for games with 2/5 luck.
For games with high luck, I think the k-factor is too high compared to the reality (I proposed 1.5 years ago to change it there: https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=186553 ). If you was reducing the k-factor for those games, the swing of elo would be lowers, so you would find great players close to the top more often, and the top players are intencive to play against random players instead of top players.

.

About the initial post and cooperatives games, I wroted around 25% of the guides on them.
You get two type of players: players who plays a specific game a lot that I will name 'hardcore', and players more 'casual' which play one game of that game from time to time.
The problem is that the amount of games played by casual players are much lower than the amount of games played by hardcore players (it's what I think, I have zero proof of that line).
But so, to find casual games, you will need to wait a lot more.
Hardcore players will have done 100+ games, sometimes 1000+ depending of the coop game. They have played multiple time with new players, and are in average better than the average player.

At the same time, myself included, I like going deep in games, I play way less versus games because doing things against others use more of my energy or make me more angry. And so I play mostly advanced difficulties/advanced tables which usually are restricted to at least 100+ elo.
To take the crew as an example, games which are in deep sea and missions 28+ (close to hardest settings) I usually is much more talkative than games with lower elo.
And I could be wrong but I don't think I would be the only one.
Strangly enough, I think people which are more toxic don't play those settings, because they could be angry in chat, get some strong logical answers, and would double down which lead to a very bad experience for everyone even themselves.(it's linked with IQ too, the more IQ you have, the better and the more friendly you should be in average, even if it's extremely simplified).
And so they would goes in lower/medium tables where they can feel great, and be toxic against others players.
I insist, those last sentences are what I think, I could be wrong.
You can see one short post about it here: https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43310 .

Hanabi has the most conventions by a large margin.
The crew have some, which are explained in 15 lines here: https://en.doc.boardgamearena.com/Tips_thecrew .
Outside of those two, there is some games which can be toxic but that's mostly because they are hard, and a single players can totally make the game loss (some players wouldn't care, but some others would).
Personnally Yokai and Burgle bros got that feeling on me, where playing with bad players make me not enjoy the game at all. While most others are still manageable, and I still find fun playing them/reparing mistakes somehow.

.

Looking at your profile, you talked about 'coop games', but only played Hanabi which in fact is extremely weird, you should have said Hanabi directly

About Hanabi, if you play without conventions but have played the game a lot, after someone give an hint, the question became 'does that player make a mistake? Is it the commun interpretation? Is it the uncommon one that 3% of players does?'. And answering those questions just is a roll of dice.
The thing with IRL is that you play with the same group of players multiples times, so you know how everyone react, you can create conventions conscientiously (by telling, from now on we will do X in that situation) or unconsciously (the last two times we played player X did that, so from now on, I will assume in that spot we will do that). And it will work well.
When you play with random players, you will not know what happen in the previous games, and so need either:
- to restart from scratch all your predictions,
- or start to play with uneficient conventions and work the best you can with it (that has been done, and that play pretty differently)(but still after a while, the more you play, the more you optimise, and the conventions arises. You either add them, or you still split the differents cases, to the point where you got two players with two strong reasonnings but which lead with differents interpretations (per example in situation X do you saves 3 & 4 in chop?) which are both good, but which lead to bomb and losses),
- or note the conventions the community agrees on, and everyone agrees to play with those 'rules'.

You can't recreate your unique experience IRL except if you play a lot with the same group of people. And even still if you try to win, after 50 or 100 games, you will have problems arising that I tried to explain before.

[ChiefPointThief]

Once again, my settings are set for good players and above.

Winning 68% of the time against players in the 200s Elo does not make someone a great player at that game.

How about the fact that I was the 1st of like 7 people to reach expert at the game, Im the only player to reach 550, or that I won the 1st arena and only didn't play in following seasons because I understand how flawed arena is, or that I've been the world elo leader for the majority of the time the game has existed on the site and theres close to 100,000 players? Do any of these things qualify me?

"good players" on this site are 200 Elo and above. Despite the title of that Elo range, there are a lot of low-skill players rated in the 200s.

This analysis is game dependent and simply false which is part of the point of this discussion. Applying the same rating system/titles across all games is flawed.

A mediocre player could play entirely against beginners (in the 0-100 Elo range) and have a high win percentage that would not correlate well with that player's actual skill.

A player could play entirely against experts and masters and have a 50% win rate which again would not correlate with that player's actual skill.

Yeah. This COULD happen, but didnt, so what relevance does this have pertaining to what I said?

Nor does it mean that player should have a higher Elo than someone who wins 50% of the time against Elite players.

I set the filter for most of my games to "Strong players" and above. In some cases, "Expert" and above. Thus, I'll have a lower win% in the long run, but a high Elo.

To put it another way: If I play a lot of games against the highest rated "Earth" player, we will, on average, perhaps have a 50% win rate each, while still maintaining Elos in the high 600s.

I gave you a very specific example and you decided to add a bunch of irrelevant and inapplicable things. There is currently only one expert player in the game I referred to and like 0.6% of the entire community is strong or above. Why are you comparing it to earth which has a luck rating of 1?

You talk about your settings but did not mention your opponent's settings. For all we know they're playing 300+ players for their games, and that's why they can maintain a lower win percentage than you while having the higher rating.

Well we do know because, If you only tried to play against strong players and above in this game you wouldnt find many tables as only 0.6% of players even fall into that category, they play in arena and it is impossible to filter in this way, & because their play history is public information

For the record I will eventually climb back above this player but a proper rating system shouldnt seesaw your strength level. I shouldve never fallen below them in the 1st place and it shouldnt be so easy to do so. I played captain flip arena season 1 and competed w/ another great player for the top spot. We both played at an elite level throughout the season but took drastic falls at some point playing game by game trying to get a few more points than the other. Having a system in which you can play at an elite level over hundreds and hundreds of games over months and to lose all of that within 20 minutes on a bad streak in a 4 luck rating game is insane & an improper rating system. I've already had this debate with you on several threads and shown you several examples and data. These convos usually end with "well dont play luck games" lol. Bga COULD fix this issue but I've accepted that it will never happen.

[FrankJones]

You wrote a very long post that essentially says, "I accomplished this and this and this, therefore any system in which I ever fall in the rankings is flawed."

As you said, you'll get back to the top again, so what's the issue?

You went on an unlucky streak at a high-variance game. I'm not seeing anything that needs to be "fixed."

What exactly do you want BGA to do about it? Change the k-factor? That would make it more difficult to have reached 550 Elo in the first place. There are 1500 games on BGA. DO you want them to analyze each one and come up with a game-specific k-factor for each one?

I never said "don't play luck based games." I play some high-variance games. I was world Elo #1 at a game and I can't even get to 350 Elo because of how high the variance is. If BGA changes the k-factor, that's not goi to make it any easier for me or anyone else to reach 350 or 400 or 500.

And I've never once complained about how much my Elo falls when I lose. That's just the nature of high-variance games.

Also, you really went from 550 Elo to 380 in 20 minutes? This sounds like a super high variance game.

[FrankJones]

"good players" on this site are 200 Elo and above. Despite the title of that Elo range, there are a lot of low-skill players rated in the 200s.

This analysis is game dependent and simply false which is part of the point of this discussion. Applying the same rating system/titles across all games is flawed.

There's no flaw in what I said. Just because a specific Elo range is titled "good players" (200-300 Elo on BGA), doesn't mean every player rated 200 is actually a good player. Especially in a high-variance game. I mean, you're contradicting yourself within your own circular argument.

If the game is so luck-based that the rating system is flawed (in your opinion), then how can you assert that every player with a 200 Elo is a good player? In a high-variance game, surely there are a lot of mediocre players who go on a lucky streak and get into the 200s?

Winning streaks and losing streaks happen even at games with low luck. The top player at Earth recently went from 770 to 670, and now is back at 720. Why is this necessarily a problem that needs to be "fixed"?

[FrankJones]

So, ChiefPointThief -

Are you saying:

1) You are a 550 level player who is unfairly sitting at 380 for the time being, but
2) All players rated 200 are accurately rated; none of them are low-skill players who should be in the 100s but went on a lucky streak

?

Do you really find these statements to be logically consistent? or am I misunderstanding you?

[FrankJones]

There are only 16 players at that game rated 400 or higher. With 2 million total games played. Only one player is higher than 472, and nobody is higher than 500.

Seems like a high-variance high-luck game that isn't likely to sustain a lot of players in the 400s, and certainly not in the 500s.

20 isn't really all that high of a k-factor. Some sites use 32.

[ChiefPointThief]

You wrote a very long post that essentially says, "I accomplished this and this and this, therefore any system in which I ever fall in the rankings is flawed."

As you said, you'll get back to the top again, so what's the issue?

You went on an unlucky streak at a high-variance game. I'm not seeing anything that needs to be "fixed."

What exactly do you want BGA to do about it? Change the k-factor? That would make it more difficult to have reached 550 Elo in the first place. There are 1500 games on BGA. DO you want them to analyze each one and come up with a game-specific k-factor for each one?

I never said "don't play luck based games." I play some high-variance games. I was world Elo #1 at a game and I can't even get to 350 Elo because of how high the variance is. If BGA changes the k-factor, that's not goi to make it any easier for me or anyone else to reach 350 or 400 or 500.

And I've never once complained about how much my Elo falls when I lose. That's just the nature of high-variance games.

Also, you really went from 550 Elo to 380 in 20 minutes? This sounds like a super high variance game.

My response wasn’t “long” at all. You just didn’t like it because it highlighted everything you said to me was false lol

No bga doesn’t need to create 1400 different rating systems but they could create a handful.

The portion about “don’t play luck games” was clearly directed at ceaseless who has said things like this in the past on this topic (as well as others).

You were explained the impact of this rating system on luck games in this thread

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... e&start=10

People give you charts, graphs, data, examples & people like you just ignore all of it and say “well I still think nothing is wrong”

Never said I went from 550 to 380 in 20 minutes . You keep making up a lot of things.

[FrankJones]

You wrote a very long post that essentially says, "I accomplished this and this and this, therefore any system in which I ever fall in the rankings is flawed."

As you said, you'll get back to the top again, so what's the issue?

You went on an unlucky streak at a high-variance game. I'm not seeing anything that needs to be "fixed."

What exactly do you want BGA to do about it? Change the k-factor? That would make it more difficult to have reached 550 Elo in the first place. There are 1500 games on BGA. DO you want them to analyze each one and come up with a game-specific k-factor for each one?

I never said "don't play luck based games." I play some high-variance games. I was world Elo #1 at a game and I can't even get to 350 Elo because of how high the variance is. If BGA changes the k-factor, that's not goi to make it any easier for me or anyone else to reach 350 or 400 or 500.

And I've never once complained about how much my Elo falls when I lose. That's just the nature of high-variance games.

Also, you really went from 550 Elo to 380 in 20 minutes? This sounds like a super high variance game.

My response wasn’t “long” at all. You just didn’t like it because it highlighted everything you said to me was false lol

No bga doesn’t need to create 1400 different rating systems but they could create a handful.

The portion about “don’t play luck games” was clearly directed at ceaseless who has said things like this in the past on this topic (as well as others).

You were explained the impact of this rating system on luck games in this thread

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... e&start=10

People give you charts, graphs, data, examples & people like you just ignore all of it and say “well I still think nothing is wrong”

Never said I went from 550 to 380 in 20 minutes . You keep making up a lot of things.

Ummm.

posted by you literally on this page:
"We both played at an elite level throughout the season but took drastic falls at some point playing game by game trying to get a few more points than the other. Having a system in which you can play at an elite level over hundreds and hundreds of games over months and to lose all of that within 20 minutes on a bad streak in a 4 luck rating game is insane & an improper rating system."


May I ask, why do you play players with much lower Elo than you, thereby putting your Elo at risk in a high-variance game?

Your opinion (key word, opinion) is that Elo is broken because ratings fluctuate a lot in high-variance games. My opinion is that there is no issue here, because ratings fluctuations are natural in high-variance games.

[BarnardsStar]

Your opinion (key word, opinion) is that Elo is broken because ratings fluctuate a lot in high-variance games. My opinion is that there is no issue here, because ratings fluctuations are natural in high-variance games.

I think this is the heart of the matter. You can look at Elo definitionally (it tells you how a player has done recently for some definition of “recent”), or predictively (it should tell you how a player is going to do). For pure strategy games like chess, these are much the same thing. For luck-based games, not so much.

If you want Elo to function more predictively, lowering the k-factor would give you a longer-term average. But bear in mind if we were to cut the k-factor in half, you’d get half as many points from each win (and lose half as many to each loss). Would you ever have hit 550 in such a case? I’d say not. Extremely generously, you’d have been lucky to hit 300. And guess what? Instead of bobbing up and down by 20 points out of 550 with each win and loss, you’d be bobbing and down by 10 points out of 300. And I think you’d still be unhappy with that, since everybody else would be bobbing as well and sometimes overtaking you and sometimes not, and you’d still have the same issues with that.

I just don’t think Elo is best-suited for what you are hoping for from such a system when it comes to high-variance games.