Proposition for Arena ranking: should inactivity cause rating decay?

[Njörd]

I can understand why the overall ELO rating system does not take into account how frequently someone plays. However, I think Arena should work differently, since the whole point of Arena is to be a competition over a limited period of time.

In my opinion, there should be some kind of rating decay for inactivity. This would encourage the top-ranked players to keep playing and actually take the risk of defending their position.

At the moment, the more you play, the more you expose yourself to losing points by finishing 2nd or 3rd in a 3-player game. And the risk/reward seems particularly unbalanced: a win often gives fewer than 10 points, finishing 2nd can cost more than 10, and finishing 3rd can cost more than 30.

This makes maintaining a high ranking while continuing to play particularly difficult. Meanwhile, once some players reach one of the top positions, they can simply stop playing for several weeks and keep their ranking.

For a permanent ELO ranking, I can understand that. But for a seasonal competitive mode like Arena, shouldn't the system reward players who actually keep competing throughout the season?

A small, progressive rating decay after a certain period of inactivity could make the Arena ranking more dynamic and encourage top players to defend their position rather than simply stop playing once they reach it.

[swibat]

I think this has been talked to death on various games on the website for years.

I don't think anything is gonna change now because people are used to these issues. Arena is about encouraging addictive behavior, not about fair competition. I don't like it even if sometimes I'm in the mood and play some. But if you want a healthy environment, tournaments (with rules that you decide) and standard games are the way to go, I believe.

[frogstar_A]

All rating decay does is make it most sensible to play all your games in the last week or two of the arena.

Instead of building up to a nice ranking in the early weeks then stopping people would do the opposite- don't play at all for the first 80 days of each 90 day season.

Also why should points from wins at the start ofnthe season be slowly drained away whereas points at the end dont? Surely if I play 30 games and win 25 of them it shouldn't matter when in the season I played those games should it?

[Njörd]

The proposition is not about playing at the beginning or at the end, but to keep a minimum activity.

A player with a 70% win rate over 20 games will be ranked higher than a player with a 75% win rate over 200 games.

For general Elo ranking it's ok... but Arena just become a field for taking a position instead of being regular.

[FSKFSK]

Arena already has decay. Your "Arena Elo" gets reset at the start of each season.

It's a flaw in the elo system, that it's weighted towards your most recent games. Your last 10-20 games count the most for determining your rating. If a game has a luck component, the way to get the top Arena spot is to keep playing, wait to go on a winning streak and stop at #1. Then, quit playing and hope nobody can pass you, once you get #1.

Example: Suppose you lose a game you should have won. Then, for future games, you gain more elo for winning and lose less elo for losing. The loss matter less and less for your ranking the more games you play.

The way you get #1 for a game with a luck component is to grind a lot of games, and then stop playing when a winning streak puts you at #1.

There are alternate rating systems that weight every game equally, rather than only counting your most recent games like elo.

[stupendousman]

While we’re on the topic, there should also be a separate ranking pool for turn based vs live because the two of have very different player strengths. You shouldn’t be able to gain a gazillion rating points without playing any of the other strong players.

[Njörd]

Arena already has decay. Your "Arena Elo" gets reset at the start of each season.

It's a flaw in the elo system, that it's weighted towards your most recent games. Your last 10-20 games count the most for determining your rating. If a game has a luck component, the way to get the top Arena spot is to keep playing, wait to go on a winning streak and stop at #1. Then, quit playing and hope nobody can pass you, once you get #1.

Example: Suppose you lose a game you should have won. Then, for future games, you gain more elo for winning and lose less elo for losing. The loss matter less and less for your ranking the more games you play.

The way you get #1 for a game with a luck component is to grind a lot of games, and then stop playing when a winning streak puts you at #1.

There are alternate rating systems that weight every game equally, rather than only counting your most recent games like elo.

The season is very long. The reset has no interest for the dynamic because we never play against good players when they stop to play after reaching the first places.

The only way to reach the top five is to win 20 games in a raw. That means you not only needs to be good but also to win against statistics. It is almost impossible to win 20 games in a raw. If you lose 2 games you lose between 60 and 70 points.

[Jellby]

The only way to reach the top five is to win 20 games in a raw. [...] It is almost impossible to win 20 games in a raw.

Maybe that's why there are only 5 people in the top 5?

[Njörd]

While we’re on the topic, there should also be a separate ranking pool for turn based vs live because the two of have very different player strengths. You shouldn’t be able to gain a gazillion rating points without playing any of the other strong players.

Exact. Live appears more random with players killing their own game... and yours at the same time.

In your case Stupendousman, you seems to be expert losing sometimes against beginners because of other beginners.

That could also happen to other experts... but they play less when they are on the top.
It is a choice, but imagine the dynamic of a season if you lose 10 points each Day you don't play ?
Elo global ranking don't change but the season become more interesting

[Njörd]

The only way to reach the top five is to win 20 games in a raw. [...] It is almost impossible to win 20 games in a raw.

Maybe that's why there are only 5 people in the top 5?

Funny but if you look well, even the best players never manage to win more than 8-10 games in a raw in this arena season.