Arena Suggestion

[agapencjoe]

Over the last year or so I've gotten more into the arena side of BGA and I really enjoy it. One of the things that I noticed is that once someone reaches the top of the arena, they generally don't play as many games and just sit there and wait for somebody to try to pass them so that they can win the arena. A suggestion would be that each day people lose a certain amount of arena points just for lack of activity to begin to cause people to work their way down for not continuing to play

[Meeplelowda]

Over the last year or so I've gotten more into the arena side of BGA and I really enjoy it. One of the things that I noticed is that once someone reaches the top of the arena, they generally don't play as many games and just sit there and wait for somebody to try to pass them so that they can win the arena. A suggestion would be that each day people lose a certain amount of arena points just for lack of activity to begin to cause people to work their way down for not continuing to play

This is not a new idea. I would link to one of the several threads discussing it, but there's currently a site bug preventing such links from being processed.

[tbhp]

But then in order to win Arena you would have to be playing every single day of the 90 days, because you can bet there are some people who are going to do that, and if you don't do the same, you probably won't be able to catch up to those players.

Also, people would still complain about luck streaks potentially putting players far above the rest. It's just that instead of players sitting for months on their position, you would see a lot of switching back and forth, but in the end people would still say it comes down to luck who happens to be ahead when the season ends.

Maybe people should just stop complaining about luck streaks and acknowledge that, while luck plays some role, in the end it tends to always be the same bunch of players who are near the top.

[FrankJones]

For the games I play in the Arena, the champions each season are players who play very high volume, not players who go on a lucky streak and then just park themselves there without playing more games.

[RazorOz]

Problem for suggestions like this is why would you play early in the season then. Also worth noting one of the reasons players may not just play Arena for 3 months solid is because the ELO reducer makes it highly unfavourable to do so for many games, if you never take a break you get buried ELO wise.

[tbhp]

For the games I play in the Arena, the champions each season are players who play very high volume, not players who go on a lucky streak and then just park themselves there without playing more games.

I think it's a mix of those two. They'll play hundreds of games for a while then at some point they'll stop. Why would they not if they are 100 points above the runner up?

It can be tricky to compare different players because in Harmonies, for example, some of the players who do great in Arena rarely appear in tournaments. But you have to be really good to be able to output hundreds of high quality games in the span of a few months, and in real time for some of them, so it's clear they are up there among the best players of the game.

Conversely there are players who are beasts in tournaments, but either don't seem interested in Arena or seem to not do as well when the set up involves playing many different games at the same time. I guess the two venues cater to different kinds of mindsets. Arena is all about the constant pressure of performing, while tournaments in their ending stages are all about giving your total focus on this one decisive game. Both can be extremely stressful in their own way, as the line between failure and glory is so thin, but they are different experiences.

[FrankJones]

You are most likely correct that it is a mix of the two.

That said, if someone plays hundreds of games and then has a 100 point arena lead, I would say that player has earned the right to sit atop the rankings and take a break for the last couple of weeks.

For example, here: https://boardgamearena.com/gamepanel?ga ... =873644644

But, kevinsbane loves the game and generally plays right up until the end. I seem perpetually stuck in 4th place (2 seasons in a row and headed there again this season). I would need to play more to have a chance to win - and playing more is no guarantee I would place higher than 3rd or 4th. I'm not better than the other top 5 players.

Here is another example:

https://boardgamearena.com/gamepanel?game=aquatica

Nobody is going to catch the leader - he is the only player to ever achieve 700 Elo in that game. No one else has come close, and only 4 players (that I am aware of) have ever reached 500 Elo.

But, with such a big lead, he can take a break or keep playing, he has 1st place locked up.

For other games where the leader has less of a lead, I would think the end-season strategy would be to take a break and make the other players try to catch up.

And, being a turn-based player means being unable to play during the final 5 days, which might be partly why some players don't play at the end of the season.

[tbhp]

So, you are talking about Earth and Aquatica. (I say that because the links don't seem to work)

But, kevinsbane loves the game and generally plays right up until the end.

That's nice and it can give other players more hope of being able to catch up. With that said, this player has won Arena four times already, so that may be why they are more playful now. They may have sat back when they were going for their first win.

Nobody is going to catch the leader - he is the only player to ever achieve 700 Elo in that game. No one else has come close, and only 4 players (that I am aware of) have ever reached 500 Elo.

That's crazy. I wonder what makes it so that some people can be so far above everyone else in a game. I mean, with this gap, he would beat the players right after him a good majority of the time.

[FrankJones]

That's crazy. I wonder what makes it so that some people can be so far above everyone else in a game. I mean, with this gap, he would beat the players right after him a good majority of the time.

Being one of best players on the site is a big part of it. Volume is the other part. Eventually, the Elo ceiling is reached. Until there are more players above 500, it just won't be possible to maintain a 700 Elo at Aquatica. Just reaching 700 at all was a tremendous accomplishment.

But, in Arena, there are enough players with reasonably high Arena scores, making it possible to continue to gain arena points from wins even while not really gaining any Elo.

[RazorOz]

I think it's a mix of those two. They'll play hundreds of games for a while then at some point they'll stop. Why would they not if they are 100 points above the runner up?

It can be tricky to compare different players because in Harmonies, for example, some of the players who do great in Arena rarely appear in tournaments. But you have to be really good to be able to output hundreds of high quality games in the span of a few months, and in real time for some of them, so it's clear they are up there among the best players of the game.

Conversely there are players who are beasts in tournaments, but either don't seem interested in Arena or seem to not do as well when the set up involves playing many different games at the same time. I guess the two venues cater to different kinds of mindsets. Arena is all about the constant pressure of performing, while tournaments in their ending stages are all about giving your total focus on this one decisive game. Both can be extremely stressful in their own way, as the line between failure and glory is so thin, but they are different experiences.

Arena is much more of a commitment than tournaments if you want to actually win, it will vary from game to game how many games you need to play, but eg. Heat, an Arena game takes around 45 minutes, and you've got to play at least 80 games I would say in a season to have any chance of winning. At something like Azul, I would imagine that number is in the 100's, it's much more of a commitment than a tournament that might take as long as the entire Arena season to play.

This probably varies game to game, but I would say far more of the top players are in tournaments than Arena, at Heat like 95% of the top 50 ranked players are playing tournaments, only about 30-40% of them are regularly playing Arena (some will play the odd game, but you're never going to win Arena that way), and that's reflected in the play too, I would definitely say the highest level games all take place in tournaments rather than Arena. This may vary massively from game to game, as some games lend themselves to tournaments much better than others.