Player rankings , what is needed for each level ? Apprentice , Average, Good Expert etc.

[tarongot]

Eh, it seems like it introduces "table selection" as a component of the "skill" of playing the game which, while very true to its poker roots, doesn't tell you much about if they're a good player at the table or not.

If you contend it's a more accurate measure of a player's skill, I think my response would be that it can't be all that much better than a point per win, and whatever miniscule increase in accuracy you get is outweighed by the negative impact on the playing community overall.

But that's just my subjective opinion; obviously I don't have any data to back that up.

----

Coincidentally, we played together this morning and won, so kudos to us.

I really don't understand how you can say that "1 point per win" has any measurements value of players skill. You only see if by amount of "properly ranked wins" player fit in range. Nothing more. More info gives you simple checking that player's number of wins to number of games played.
So how can you compare that to system that's evaluate game difficult, number of players, level of that players, and maybe more?

With "1 point" per win player can get to any level by playing ONLY simplest variant (3 player, base game), and people did that. They get to a master level just by playing simplest games. With good system, and I'm not saying one that The Gang has is good, that would be impossible.

And even that The Gang system is average and has at least 1 serious BUG it gives you that. If you see someones level like strong, expert, you know he is good player, that had to win a lot, and on higher difficulties as well. How you know that? Because even in that average system you CAN'T get to strong level playing only basic games. At some point you will not get any more points, and because of bug you will even lost points for won games like that.

If ELO/ranking have so negative impact on community why no one yet replaced it with "1 point system, since it gives not much worse accuracy" in competitive games? Check level of toxicity in Catan, Bang, Hearts games.

Its not ranking that generate toxicity, that is, just not supported by anything, claim of some users an vocal game developer. How so when that toxicity is mentioned games like Hanabi, Crew are mentioned, bu i never saw Pandemic mentioned in that context. Pandemic has ranking form many months, maybe even years.
And The Gang since it was moved to Beta, and first ELO games could be played, it had that "1 point per win" system, that was changed. But that change wasn't really noticed by community. Even to this day many doesn't know that this system changed. So how it could have impact on toxicity?

I have simpler explanation. Toxicity in The Gang and similar games is generated by its mechanics. The Gang is game where all have to do their parts on theirs own. Other players, teammates, have no impact on that. Other players doesn't see how good your move was, until its to late and we lose.
That is that game type. In other cooperative games that might not be a case. Other players can see that move was bad, and by their moves can try to fix it or lower it impact, so toxicity is lower.

[Meereseule]

0 games = beginner
1 to 100 wins! = apprentice

It counts the wins, not ELO. I saw people with over 200 games still being apprentice, because they didn’t have 100 wins to be average. So playing with people who don’t understand the game are hindering players to even get to a start where you can play with people who know how. It’s annoying and there are multiple discussions here on the forum, people are so frustrated by it, including me. It doesn’t make sense at all.

[tarongot]

0 games = beginner
1 to 100 wins! = apprentice

It counts the wins, not ELO. I saw people with over 200 games still being apprentice, because they didn’t have 100 wins to be average. So playing with people who don’t understand the game are hindering players to even get to a start where you can play with people who know how. It’s annoying and there are multiple discussions here on the forum, people are so frustrated by it, including me. It doesn’t make sense at all.

Thanks for confirmation what I said.

But that change wasn't really noticed by community. Even to this day many doesn't know that this system changed.

No its not. I've seen people average (100-199 ELO) with 36 wins. I've seen Good players with 70 wins, and still strong with 900 wins. That would not be possible with 1 points per win.
It counts ELO, it has different values for different game difficulties, you lose points for lost games and more.

PS: You can check my profile. I have 266 wins and I'm strong (300-499 ELO).

[PseudoPserious]

Any method is an imperfect approximation of the answer to the question "is this person good at this game?". My preference is for a method that doesn't disincentivize folks from joining any and all games. It also seems especially harsh to lose elo points in a game in which another player can cause the team to lose no matter how well you yourself play.

I think my ideal method would be one that awards more elo points for a harder game than an easier game, and maybe no elo points for winning a game that's well below your current rating level, but I don't like losing points for losing a game.

[tarongot]

Any method is an imperfect approximation of the answer to the question "is this person good at this game?". My preference is for a method that doesn't disincentivize folks from joining any and all games. It also seems especially harsh to lose elo points in a game in which another player can cause the team to lose no matter how well you yourself play.

I think my ideal method would be one that awards more elo points for a harder game than an easier game, and maybe no elo points for winning a game that's well below your current rating level, but I don't like losing points for losing a game.

I understand your position, but to be able to answer that question, system must have ability to keep player at given level. I don't see this being possible without losing points.
Not getting any points for win game below players level will only slow down progress. If player doesn't lose anything, can just play and count on lucky win, or easy game/match.

In competitive games there are matches where regardless of how player and his opponent play, result will be the same, so not much different. A combination of match conditions, random factors and game imbalance make this happen. And none simple system will take that into consideration. All BGA systems for all games are simple, and to be clear, I don't expect that to be different.