the *decreasing ELO gain if you win against the same players rule*

[FrankJones]

I dont like to repeat myself by the third time...

so this shall be the last time please.
the only think that counts is the time.

if only the time counts, no matter if it includes a certain 'style' .. and the time from every player is fully *independent* from every other player ..
then the times are used for determining the Elo, not any styles .. and no gameplay interaction exists between players, everyone solves the puzzles on their own.

I don't think anyone here has any idea what you are talking about (in the italicized portion).

That's probably why you had to repeat it several times.

"...if only the time counts". (Huh ??)

"no matter if it includes a certain 'style' " (Huh ???)

"and the time from every player is fully *independent* from every other player .. " (What ??)

"then the times are used for determining the Elo, not any styles " (What !?? )

" and no gameplay interaction exists between players, everyone solves the puzzles on their own." (What ?!?!?!)

What does any of this have to do with anything, especially the topic of your thread?

[joyoy]

some who responded to me since the last time:

you havent read correctly, mine before.
I mentioned before that a (smaller) part of the rule can remain - exactly what is meant to oppose cheating.

the other part- what I described as' 'what is handled here', - does indeed not apply to Gamme Logic (or some other games probbaly) and therefore must be removed completely.

[BarnardsStar]

some who responded to me since the last time:

you havent read correctly, mine before.
I mentioned before that a (smaller) part of the rule can remain - exactly what is meant to oppose cheating.

the other part- what I described as' 'what is handled here', - does indeed not apply to Gamme Logic (or some other games probbaly) and therefore must be removed completely.

I think you’re the one who’s not reading correctly. This rule is entirely an anti-cheating measure. There is no “other part” to it. I grant you it is a stupid, terrible rule. But it is meant to be a deterrent to cheating and as such applies equally to every game. And I have no idea why you would think your game any different.

[joyoy]

Frank Jones - you claim that what I write is hardly comprehensible , and then you answer with total zero content - just adding random single words like "huhh??" on my lines??
freaking annoying and trolling.
either you have something sensible to add or you can avoid it.

BernardStar - why do you phrase it "your game"? it is not my game!! continuing insinuations.
secondly, there was never clarified that it is only for anti-cheating.
therefore, thirdly, I can never have written that Gamme Logic would be an exception to this pattern, when the pattern (that the rule is 100% anti heating) has never been established.

[FrankJones]

Frank Jones - you claim that what I write is hardly comprehensible , and then you answer with total zero content - just adding random single words like "huhh??" on my lines??
freaking annoying and trolling.
either you have something sensible to add or you can avoid it.

I have zero content to add because I have no idea what you are trying to say. I was hoping you could clarify what you're trying to say.

[teallite]

It is completely relevant. This change was implemented as an anti-cheating mechanism!

Yeah, that's exactly the problem. An anti-cheating mechanism that is hard-wired into a player rating system. No detection, just straight prevention affecting everyone. But hey, also no false positives and false negatives. No wonder that some people can't wrap their heads around it.

The question is whether the trade-off between slowing down cheaters easily is worth the corruption of Elo for honest games.

Completely unknown. BGA management is a black box, that prefers "one size fits all" solutions. There is no guarantee that anyone even monitors such stats. In any case this anti-cheating mechanism does permanent damage to apply temporary solution. No matter if it decreases a number n of cheaters by some factor, or increases time t to cheat by some factor, without detection this system will be overcome. Also, I think that overheard for cheaters is minimal and this system is easily circumvented even without any automated scripting or other software measures.

[BarnardsStar]

BernardStar - why do you phrase it "your game"? it is not my game!! continuing insinuations.

Ok, so you don’t know what “insinuation” means. I suggest you look it up. Referring to a game you have been arguing for special treatment for as “your game” is not an insinuation.

secondly, there was never clarified that it is only for anti-cheating.
therefore, thirdly, I can never have written that Gamme Logic would be an exception to this pattern, when the pattern (that the rule is 100% anti heating) has never been established.

It was established as an anti-cheating mechanism on the day it was announced:

→ 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.

That you chose not to believe the many people who have told you this does not actually change any of the facts: it is completely an anti-cheating mechanism; you have never stated what other purpose it could possibly fulfill, and yet you are still attempting to argue for an exception for your game—sorry, for a game you happen to like.

[nik592]

Also, I think that overheard for cheaters is minimal and this system is easily circumvented even without any automated scripting or other software measures.

This is the issue I've seen multiple times. Let's put in a "fix" for a perceived abuse, but ignore that the "fix" is easily circumvented by people who don't want to play by the rules (the very definition of cheaters), and it mostly just impacts people trying to play within the limits of the site, by enforcing stronger limits, for minimal benefit.

I get that moderating is frustrating, and admin would probably love to reduce their workload. Unfortunately, people who are cool with breaking rules don't respect new ones any better than old ones. I certainly haven't seen a decrease in various complaints on the forum (which is all anecdotal, but does suggest a pattern). In fact, sometimes I think making harder rules ends up forcing the cheaters further underground - they still find ways to cheat, but now it's less obvious. Of course, an efficient ban hammer can do that too.

[Ehronde]

1. I know that Elo is based on who wins/loses only. I dont know how many more times I should try to explain the same...
the game result determines the Elo - but who wins or loses is determined or influenced by personal style or approach in a lot of / most games!! the more so the more interaction there is.

if we conisder 4 players, a b c d, with the same Elo. if their relative styles or strenghts work in a way that:
a > b > c > d > a
(a wins most against b, who wins most against c, who wins most against d, who wins most against a)

do you still maintain that Elo does not depend on playing style?
- if a never plays against b, and most against d..
- compared to a plays most against b and never against d..
his Elo will be much much higher in the second case. even though initially the Elo of his opponents were the same, but a's compatibiliy was much worse or better.
here the rule is to limit that effect.

ELO doesn't care how winner and loser are determined. If you're playing a game with high or low interaction, just flip a coin or let players discuss who is the winner doesn't matter.

Your example with a having a higher ELO because he only plays against b is not a problem with ELO calculation. It's a problem with pairing. If you really want comparable ELO scores, you have to make sure that a plays a comparable number of games against d and not change the ELO system.

[FrankJones]

Also, I think that overheard for cheaters is minimal and this system is easily circumvented even without any automated scripting or other software measures.

This is the issue I've seen multiple times. Let's put in a "fix" for a perceived abuse, but ignore that the "fix" is easily circumvented by people who don't want to play by the rules (the very definition of cheaters), and it mostly just impacts people trying to play within the limits of the site, by enforcing stronger limits, for minimal benefit.

I get that moderating is frustrating, and admin would probably love to reduce their workload. Unfortunately, people who are cool with breaking rules don't respect new ones any better than old ones. I certainly haven't seen a decrease in various complaints on the forum (which is all anecdotal, but does suggest a pattern). In fact, sometimes I think making harder rules ends up forcing the cheaters further underground - they still find ways to cheat, but now it's less obvious. Of course, an efficient ban hammer can do that too.

Agreed on all counts.

To the OP in this thread: Hey, I wasn't trying to give you a hard time. The title of your thread is "the decreasing Elo gain if you win against the same player rule", and then you're talking about in-game interaction and play style and other similar things, none of which has any connection to the topic, hence my confusion.

2 consecutive wins will not trigger this silly rule. A third one (in too short a time span) will, but the penalty is minor: The winner of a 3rd consecutive game against the same player will gain 90% of the expected Elo gain, and this will be highlighted in the game result page and score change.

At that point, in the rare case this happens, I just give that opponent a temporary red thumb so we don't keep getting paired up until a few days have passed, at which point the consecutive games counter usually resets.

This is a matchmaking and pairing issue, and has nothing to do with the playstyles of the players (or anything else within the game).