Ranked matches vs the same player

[Daggerheart]

In one of the BGA games a player has played 1000+ matches vs one player (his granddad?). Most/all of these matches were ranked matches, and this player have won his last 113 matches vs the same opponent. Yes, 113 matches in a row. He is now only playing vs this player, and the wins in the last 300+ matches took him to first place on the rankings, leading with a big margin. That is, 1st place on the BGA ranking ("world" ranking). Note that I do not believe the player is cheating, and the matches are genuine.

1) Do you think this should be possible? Legal or not?
2) These are two possible options to deal with it:

1. That if a certain % of your ranked matches (over 50%?) is vs the same player, the matches are changed to "friendly" mode vs that player.
2. You can only play 20 (or similar) ranked matches in A ROW vs the same player, then you must play 5 or 10 (or similar) matches vs other opponents before you can play vs the same player again in ranked mode.
3. Set each win to 0 ranking points (taking all the allready awarded 1 points from him).

Which of these options you support the most? There are other ways to deal with it?

[Meeplelowda]

In one of the BGA games a player has played 1000+ matches vs one player (his granddad?). Most/all of these matches were ranked matches, and this player have won his last 113 matches vs the same opponent. Yes, 113 matches in a row. He is now only playing vs this player, and the wins in the last 300+ matches took him to first place on the rankings, leading with a big margin. That is, 1st place on the BGA ranking ("world" ranking). Note that I do not believe the player is cheating, and the matches are genuine.

1) Do you think this should be possible? Legal or not?
2) These are two possible options to deal with it:

1. That if a certain % of your ranked matches (over 50%?) is vs the same player, the matches are changed to "friendly" mode vs that player.
2. You can only play 20 (or similar) ranked matches in A ROW vs the same player, then you must play 5 or 10 (or similar) matches vs other opponents before you can play vs the same player again in ranked mode.

Which of these options you support the most? There are other ways to deal with it?

There is already a system in place that gradually reduces your Elo gains for a win to zero if you keep winning against the same person (see the OP in this thread). So winning 113 match in a row would not actually affect their rank. Go look at the actual matches and check the results to see what the Elo gain was.

[Daggerheart]

He has 15 wins vs other players, and 881 wins vs his dad/granddad. 113 wins in row, last 113 matches. A total of 1194 matches, but many of the losses came in the start, so most of his last 890 matches have been vs his dad/granddad, and close to all wins. Yes, this is EXTREME, but it took him to 1st place by far in the actual game. I have now looked at it, and he gets 1 points every third game or something, but he has gotten several of 100s points this way.

So my suggestion is to set all wins to 0 points, but this must be implemented so he loses all these 1 points.

[SiRan90]

Then he got the points before the "new" system was put in place?

He has 15 wins vs other players, and 881 wins vs his dad/granddad. 113 wins in row, last 113 matches. A total of 1194 matches, but many of the losses came in the start, so most of his last 890 matches have been vs his dad/granddad, and close to all wins. Yes, this is EXTREME, but it took him to 1st place by far in the actual game.

The changes took place nearly 3 years ago. I didn't go through the whole list but they seem to play every day so I'd say the majority were after if not all. The last 100 or so games(that's all I went through) they mostly got 0 elo with the occasional 1. Your suggested changes won't make that much of a difference in them being first

[Daggerheart]

No, you are wrong, he has gotten several hundred points in ELO, by getting 1 point every 2nd match or something. He should have gotten 0 in all these matches.

I also believe they should backtrack and remove all the 1 pointers.

[Ceaseless]

In one of the BGA games a player has played 1000+ matches vs one player (his granddad?). Most/all of these matches were ranked matches, and this player have won his last 113 matches vs the same opponent. Yes, 113 matches in a row. He is now only playing vs this player, and the wins in the last 300+ matches took him to first place on the rankings, leading with a big margin. That is, 1st place on the BGA ranking ("world" ranking). Note that I do not believe the player is cheating, and the matches are genuine.

1) Do you think this should be possible? Legal or not?
2) These are two possible options to deal with it:

1. That if a certain % of your ranked matches (over 50%?) is vs the same player, the matches are changed to "friendly" mode vs that player.
2. You can only play 20 (or similar) ranked matches in A ROW vs the same player, then you must play 5 or 10 (or similar) matches vs other opponents before you can play vs the same player again in ranked mode.

Which of these options you support the most? There are other ways to deal with it?

There is already a system in place that gradually reduces your Elo gains for a win to zero if you keep winning against the same person (see the OP in this thread). So winning 113 match in a row would not actually affect their rank. Go look at the actual matches and check the results to see what the Elo gain was.

Their consecutive wins are going down faster than I would expect. I'm seeing reductions to the penalty within a day or two, not sure why.

In one of the BGA games a player has played 1000+ matches vs one player (his granddad?). Most/all of these matches were ranked matches, and this player have won his last 113 matches vs the same opponent. Yes, 113 matches in a row. He is now only playing vs this player, and the wins in the last 300+ matches took him to first place on the rankings, leading with a big margin. That is, 1st place on the BGA ranking ("world" ranking). Note that I do not believe the player is cheating, and the matches are genuine.

1) Do you think this should be possible? Legal or not?
2) These are two possible options to deal with it:

1. That if a certain % of your ranked matches (over 50%?) is vs the same player, the matches are changed to "friendly" mode vs that player.
2. You can only play 20 (or similar) ranked matches in A ROW vs the same player, then you must play 5 or 10 (or similar) matches vs other opponents before you can play vs the same player again in ranked mode.
3. Set each win to 0 ranking points (taking all the allready awarded 1 points from him).

Which of these options you support the most? There are other ways to deal with it?

Yeah, this is strange, this sort of raw volume of games with one player beating up on a far weaker one in rated is something the consecutive win penalty was supposed to take care of. Also, there's a surprising amount of abandons. I don't know anything about the game in question, so I can't tell if they're legitimate abandons or suspicious ones to keep the higher rated player from losing, though I imagine you'd be able to tell from the game states.

[Meeplelowda]

Yeah, this is strange, this sort of raw volume of games with one player beating up on a far weaker one in rated is something the consecutive win penalty was supposed to take care of. Also, there's a surprising amount of abandons. I don't know anything about the game in question, so I can't tell if they're legitimate abandons or suspicious ones to keep the higher rated player from losing, though I imagine you'd be able to tell from the game states.

An excessive number of abandons is a red flag. Even if this is actually a "grandparent," that is still in effect cooperating to Elo boost even if the intent is to just be nice.

How does the reset of the consecutive wins penalty work? I don't understand how it doesn't stay at zero without a loss. If it did this kind of manipulation wouldn't be possible.

[BarnardsStar]

Their consecutive wins are going down faster than I would expect. I'm seeing reductions to the penalty within a day or two, not sure why.

In this particular case, it looks like there is a rolling "penalty window" (to determine the number of prior consecutive wins) of 1 week. I don't want to call them out and risk moderation (even though it's figure-out-able), so let's just say, from their most recent table (ending in 0231), it says the reduction is 44% due to 4 consecutive wins. The fourth prior win (6271) was 6 days and 46 minutes earlier; the fifth prior win (3533) was 2 days before that.

Or, on a table a few wins earlier, ending in 1849, it says it is 69% reduction due to 5 consecutive wins. The fifth prior win (6386) was 6 days 1h13m earlier, while the sixth prior win (3858) was about 1d20h earlier than that.

So it seems like the window, at least in this particular case, is 1 week. Does the window vary from game to game? I don't know. Does it vary from player to player? Are there other factors? I don't know.