Change Arena points and rankin

[Patrick_CAJE]

I don't like the current ranking system in the arenas. It's more like a "push your luck" approach (very agressive) than a true seasonal ranking. I've won over 100 games in a season, with a win rate of over 75%, yet my ranking progression remains stagnant. So, in one day, more victories than defeat and I loose more points than I win (ex : 7 W + 3 L = -5 on ranking, that's bad). Arenas should not be like ELO.

Seasons should only represent wins during the season, not your seasonal ELO. Therefore, my proposal would be to rank players based on the number of games played and the number of wins—essentially a percentage. This reduces the disappointing "push your luck" mentality and allows for a more realistic ranking: the more you play, the more your percentage adjusts based on your wins. So, a player with 75 wins out of 100 games at a 75% win rate might have 210 wins out of 300 games have a 70%.

This system allows for ranking tiers (Elite, Gold, Silver, etc.) based on the number of games played.

100 games played or more qualify for Elite status with a win rate of 75% or higher.

80 games played or more with a win rate of over 60% qualify for Gold status.

60 games played or more with a win rate of 50% or higher qualify for Silver status,

and 40 games played with a win rate of 25% or higher qualify for Bronze status. etc.

So, come vote here : https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=212192.

[Ceaseless]

I don't like the current ranking system in the arenas. It's more like a "push your luck" approach (very agressive) than a true seasonal ranking. I've won over 100 games in a season, with a win rate of over 75%, yet my ranking progression remains stagnant. So, in one day, more victories than defeat and I loose more points than I win (ex : 7 W + 3 L = -5 on ranking, that's bad). Arenas should not be like ELO.

Seasons should only represent wins during the season, not your seasonal ELO. Therefore, my proposal would be to rank players based on the number of games played and the number of wins—essentially a percentage. This reduces the disappointing "push your luck" mentality and allows for a more realistic ranking: the more you play, the more your percentage adjusts based on your wins. So, a player with 75 wins out of 100 games at a 75% win rate might have 210 wins out of 300 games have a 70%.

This system allows for ranking tiers (Elite, Gold, Silver, etc.) based on the number of games played.

100 games played or more qualify for Elite status with a win rate of 75% or higher.

80 games played or more with a win rate of over 60% qualify for Gold status.

60 games played or more with a win rate of 50% or higher qualify for Silver status,

and 40 games played with a win rate of 25% or higher qualify for Bronze status. etc.

So, come vote here : https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=212192.

Getting ranked based on how bad your opponents are seems like an underwhelming idea. There are problems with Arena, such as not letting you drop leagues and only having a league filter when leagues are a joke, as opposed to a rating filter. But win percentage isn't a serious system either. It would come down to short term pairing luck, and red thumb abuse would get even worse.

[Patrick_CAJE]

This doesn't depend on luck at all, but rather on your wins, even in the short term within an arena season.

For example: you have 59 games played, and even with 59 wins, you're still in Bronze. You need a 60th game (win or lose) to reach Silver. In that case, you would be leading Silver with 59 wins out of 60 games or more. This forces players to play more to climb higher in the arena rankings.

In another example: The player achieves 15 wins in 59 games. Their 60th game is a loss, so they have a 25% win rate and remain in Bronze. They must continue playing to reach 50% in order to reach Silver.

[Patrick_CAJE]

The arena rankings for a season would look like this:

1. Name | 85W - 15L | Elite
2. Name | 75W - 25L | Elite
3. Name | 75W - 30L | Gold
4. Name | 75W - 5L | Gold
5. Name | 65W - 30L | Gold
6. Name | 55W - 30L | Gold
7. Name | 55W - 35L | Gold
8. Name | 45W - 20L | Silver
9. Name | 45W - 30L | Silver
10. Name | 35W - 30L | Silver
11. Name | 30W - 15L | Bronze
12. Name | 25W - 30L | Bronze
etc.

[Ceaseless]

This doesn't depend on luck at all, but rather on your wins, even in the short term within an arena season.

For example: you have 59 games played, and even with 59 wins, you're still in Bronze. You need a 60th game (win or lose) to reach Silver. In that case, you would be leading Silver with 59 wins out of 60 games or more. This forces players to play more to climb higher in the arena rankings.

In another example: The player achieves 15 wins in 59 games. Their 60th game is a loss, so they have a 25% win rate and remain in Bronze. They must continue playing to reach 50% in order to reach Silver.

Yeah, and winrate is rooted in luck of the draw. Get bad opponents, easy to win a lot. Get good opponents, not so easy. If I get paired up against 300s, I'm going to mop the floor with them because they're still learning the basics of the game. So of course my win rate is going to be absurdly high in such a scenario. If I want to get a strong ranking, I have to face serious competition. Or I suppose if I really just abused the living daylights out of easy wins I better be able to take the corresponding blasts from the occasional dropped game due to bad luck or inconveniently timed oversight, but intentionally going for that is a pretty sad way to try handling the ladder.

[Patrick_CAJE]

I agree with what you're saying about ELO for the overall ranking, but arenas aren't measured by ELO. Against stronger opponents, with a higher ELO rating and a higher arena ranking, I lose around twenty points when I lose and only gain around ten points when I win... which doesn't reflect my arena strength. In terms of ELO, it's okay because I gain around ten points or lose less than ten in those cases. But the arena is a season; not a tournament, a World Cup, or even a knockout series... it's the wins that count, not the ELO, not the opponent's skill level, but the WINS.

[Jellby]

but arenas aren't measured by ELO

No, they're measured by EAS (Elite Arena Score), which works exactly like ELO, except it starts at 1500, is reset every season, and always has K=40 (if I'm not wrong.

it's the wins that count, not the ELO, not the opponent's skill level, but the WINS.

You're right it's not the ELO, It's the EAS.
You're wrong about the wins, it's not only about the wins, but about who you win/lose against.

[Ceaseless]

I agree with what you're saying about ELO for the overall ranking, but arenas aren't measured by ELO. Against stronger opponents, with a higher ELO rating and a higher arena ranking, I lose around twenty points when I lose and only gain around ten points when I win... which doesn't reflect my arena strength. In terms of ELO, it's okay because I gain around ten points or lose less than ten in those cases. But the arena is a season; not a tournament, a World Cup, or even a knockout series... it's the wins that count, not the ELO, not the opponent's skill level, but the WINS.

Let's look at actual facts.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=834535587 +15 vs lower rated opponent
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=834458149 You're an elite beating up a bronze, still +12.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=827142396 +25 vs higher rated opponent

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=832326895 Roughly even table, -20 for the loss.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=827609870 Another near even table, +21 for the win.

Looking at these ranges, I'd guess the Arena baseline is 20. So for an even game. you gain 20 for a win, lose 20 for a loss. The numbers would naturally be modified if the game wasn't even. If you're beating up a bunch of lower ranked players your gains go down and losses go up, and if you beat higher ranked opponents your gains go up and losses go down. Pretty standard.

Wins are a joke if you don't factor for who the opponents are. Anyone can win a bunch of games, just get paired vs weaker players, easy. You would find it ridiculous if someone bragged about their 100-game win streak vs toddlers, but a system only checking win rates wouldn't have any issues with that. The Arena is unlikely to have toddlers wandering around, but wins are not all equal. Beating a top player is not the same as beating a beginner.

Ratings help filter that nonsense. If someone gets paired with hard opponents, they get more for wins and lose less for losses. If someone gets paired with easy opponents, they get less for wins and lose more for losses, but in exchange their games are easier so they can be expected to win more and lose less to help balance it out.

[Patrick_CAJE]

But in arena, you don't choose your opponent, it's random. So when I fight against more higher than easier. I had see my opponents are always upper me and when I was elite, against elite, I win less points than I loose. so your 20 is not my reality. In one season, 190 victories for 1710 points and 68 looses for 1460. I have beat one of the 5 upper more times, and I'm in 10-15 ranked: I have only 12 for win and 25 for loose.

[Patrick_CAJE]

Against same opponent Elite both :
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=834052946 -26 points
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=833194025 +17 points

Here others more than -20 against Elite :
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=828922988 -29 points
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=828984514 -29 points

Here my wins against Elite, under 20 points :
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=815289901 +17 points
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=828673903 +13 points
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=833603882 +10 points

So where is the balance ? this matchs are all Elite vs Elite. So beat a bronze is 5 to 15 points and beat one Elite is 10 to 35 ???????? My win rate points is more less than my loose rate.