Possible Proposal: Arena Should Only Be For 500+ ELO

[FrankJones]

The game is definitely not over if your opponent lands an early crow. I've been on both sides of that — you gotta contest the game and see what happens. A strong-looking start can fizzle for reasons, and your opponent may play their hand optimally or they may not.

I don't think ELO means a whole lot to begin with, but as you say, even a 400 player can't be expected to play a strong hand perfectly. If you know the game well, and it sure seems like you do, you might get better results on balance than you are expecting by simply making them try.

If I'm going against Rye96 and they play an early Crow, what do you think the odds are that I'm going to lose?

The same odds if rye96 didn't have a crow. Zero percent.

[Archisian]

You don’t know unless you try, right? And you aren’t playing 600 ELO players in every game surely. I mean it’s up to you what kinds of games you choose to play or concede, just pointing out you could be leaving ELO on the table (if you care about that) as well as the practice of battling out tough situations and executing optimal endgames (which can sharpen the skills necessary for close fights).

Are you trying to tell me that I have a chance against the No. 1 player in the world who wins 83% of their games? I'm sorry, but that just seems ridiculous. It would be like saying I have a chance against Magnus Carlsen or Hikaru Nakamura.

[Archisian]

The game is definitely not over if your opponent lands an early crow. I've been on both sides of that — you gotta contest the game and see what happens. A strong-looking start can fizzle for reasons, and your opponent may play their hand optimally or they may not.

I don't think ELO means a whole lot to begin with, but as you say, even a 400 player can't be expected to play a strong hand perfectly. If you know the game well, and it sure seems like you do, you might get better results on balance than you are expecting by simply making them try.

If I'm going against Rye96 and they play an early Crow, what do you think the odds are that I'm going to lose?

The same odds if rye96 didn't have a crow. Zero percent.

Okay, Mr. Jones. Let's say Rye96 and I are playing a game of Wingspan and you can make a bet on who you would think would win. Where are you betting your money?

[FrankJones]

You don’t know unless you try, right? And you aren’t playing 600 ELO players in every game surely. I mean it’s up to you what kinds of games you choose to play or concede, just pointing out you could be leaving ELO on the table (if you care about that) as well as the practice of battling out tough situations and executing optimal endgames (which can sharpen the skills necessary for close fights).

Are you trying to tell me that I have a chance against the No. 1 player in the world who wins 83% of their games? I'm sorry, but that just seems ridiculous. It would be like saying I have a chance against Magnus Carlsen or Hikaru Nakamura.

You were specifically referring to the Crow. What does this have to do with the Crow?

[Archisian]

You don’t know unless you try, right? And you aren’t playing 600 ELO players in every game surely. I mean it’s up to you what kinds of games you choose to play or concede, just pointing out you could be leaving ELO on the table (if you care about that) as well as the practice of battling out tough situations and executing optimal endgames (which can sharpen the skills necessary for close fights).

Are you trying to tell me that I have a chance against the No. 1 player in the world who wins 83% of their games? I'm sorry, but that just seems ridiculous. It would be like saying I have a chance against Magnus Carlsen or Hikaru Nakamura.

You were specifically referring to the Crow. What does this have to do with the Crow?

In this scenario, Rye96 drops the Crow.

[FrankJones]

Right, it's impossible to win as a mid-300s player against a master-level player. Never happens.

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=832854342

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=811216683

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=858689342

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=856126832

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=854798134

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=852811147

Anyway, if you say you cannot possibly ever beat a high-rated Wingspan player, why are you not restricting access to players in the 200-300 or 300-500 Elo range?

[Archisian]

Right, it's impossible to win as a mid-300s player against a master-level player. Never happens.

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=832854342

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=811216683

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=858689342

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=856126832

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=854798134

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=852811147

Anyway, if you say you cannot possibly ever beat a high-rated Wingspan player, why are you not restricting access to players in the 200-300 or 300-500 Elo range?

I never said it was absolutely impossible. But the odds are so slim that it virtually is.

In Arena, I can't find a way to restrict by ELO.

[Archisian]

Right, it's impossible to win as a mid-300s player against a master-level player. Never happens.

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=832854342

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=811216683

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=858689342

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=856126832

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=854798134

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=852811147

Anyway, if you say you cannot possibly ever beat a high-rated Wingspan player, why are you not restricting access to players in the 200-300 or 300-500 Elo range?

I calculated the mathematical odds in ChatGPT, and here's what it said (and apparantly, Rye96's win-rate is actually 79%, not 83% for some reason).

That top player's record is:

4,918 wins in 6,234 games
78.9% win rate (not 83%)

A player winning nearly 79% of thousands of Wingspan games is extraordinarily strong. If I had to guess without using Elo at all, I'd expect your practical chance of winning a single game against them to be somewhere in the 5–15% range, depending on:

player count,
expansion set,
whether you're familiar with the meta,
and how much luck swings in your favor.

So your chance is probably not zero by any means, but that player would be a very heavy favorite. Over 20 games, I would expect you to win roughly 1–3 times and them to win the rest.

[FrankJones]

I never said it was absolutely impossible. But the odds are so slim that it virtually is.

In Arena, I can't find a way to restrict by ELO.

Before you started forfeiting a lot of games for unknown reasons, you were a consistent mid-300s player. You nearly reached 400.
That means you will win 10-15% of the time against a 650 Elo player. That's not "so slim it is virtually impossible."

Also, isn't Arena 3-player?
Also, why play arena if you get matched with opponents you feel you cannot beat?

[Archisian]

I never said it was absolutely impossible. But the odds are so slim that it virtually is.

In Arena, I can't find a way to restrict by ELO.

Before you started forfeiting a lot of games for unknown reasons, you were a consistent mid-300s player. You nearly reached 400.
That means you will win 10-15% of the time against a 650 Elo player. That's not "so slim it is virtually impossible."

Also, isn't Arena 3-player?
Also, why play arena if you get matched with opponents you feel you cannot beat?

10-15% is extremely insignificant in my view. Again, it comes down to who would you put money on in that situation?

Arena this season is back to 2 players.

I wanted to try Arena because I worked hard to getting almost 400 ELO that I thought I maybe had a shot a doing well. But I was getting destroyed. And then I saw a post where it said that 300-400 ELO was still considered a beginner. Seeing that absolutely crushed me. It thought maybe I got somewhere with this game only to see that nope, I'm still considered a beginner or not a good player. It brought me back down to Earth hard.