Elo gains/losses are unbalenced

[Bridget]

I dont get how this site decides its fair to give me 6 elo per win and then take 37 for a loss. Climbing the ladder on this game is so frustrating at times. Additionally losing elo for ties feels awful. There are some games where you draw into 2 maples early and have to either risk a loss and take one early or settle for a tie and accept you will lose elo anyway. I wish the gains and losses were more balanced. I am having to win 6 or 7 matches to make up for a single loss. It is brutal.

[Jellby]

Play with someone with your same elo, and it will be balanced.

If you play with someone with lower elo, you'll lose more than win. If you play with someone with higher elo, you'll win more than lose. That's by design.

[Bridget]

you say that as if I can decide who I play against.

[Ceaseless]

I dont get how this site decides its fair to give me 6 elo per win and then take 37 for a loss. Climbing the ladder on this game is so frustrating at times. Additionally losing elo for ties feels awful. There are some games where you draw into 2 maples early and have to either risk a loss and take one early or settle for a tie and accept you will lose elo anyway. I wish the gains and losses were more balanced. I am having to win 6 or 7 matches to make up for a single loss. It is brutal.

The gains and losses are balanced so that no one is expected to gain or lose anything overall. What you gain from wins is meant to be cancelled out by what you lose from losses. That's the point. How much rating can you get weighed down with before that happens? When you're having to win 6 or 7 matches to make up for a single loss, it's because you're getting paired with people that you should beat 6 or 7 times before you are expected to lose on average. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_ratin ... References Use this formula to get your expected chances of success given the rating, multiply it by the k-factor (20 when looking at regular rating and 40 when looking at Arena when dealing with an account with a decent number of that game), and you have how much you lose for a loss. If you want to know much you'd win just subtract your expected losses from the k factor.

[Bridget]

If you are coming on my post to troll me then kindly move on and do not reply.

[Bridget]

The logic of higher elo person wins more is just not applicable here. Both of you who commented don’t even play this game. The randomness of chocolate donuts plus about 1/3rd of games being guaranteed ties due to double maples makes climbing a pain. Especially once you are nearing the top. I’m 300+ elo on a lot of my opponents and the game lacks any ranks outside of bronze and elite with a very small player base so if I want to climb I have to play whoever I’m given and I’m given bronze people half the time. When they can randomly win off rng and take nearly 40 elo from me it is so unfair. Still with that said I want to offer both of you a first round 3 against me. I would 3-0 both you. Send me a challenge if you accept. I’d love to run a set.

[yuniboshi]

It is applicable and is very obvious common sense.

[groverapid5079]

The numbers follow directly from the Elo formula. Gaining 6 for a win and losing 37 for a loss means the system expects a win about 86 percent of the time against that opponent, roughly 37 divided by 43. Holding a rating steady requires matching that expected rate, so climbing requires beating it. A tie counts as half a win, which is why it costs points against lower rated opponents. In a game with many forced ties, the rating ceiling sits lower than in games with more decisive results, whatever the player's skill.