Not fair!

[Phreekshow1]

It is not fair that I am considered average player and have 4 vitories but have to be put in with people with over 100. This system eeds to be more balanced!

[MrWatchdog]

Everybody who is not at least a good player nor a beginner ends up as "average player".

It's not about just the victory count, it's about how frequently they win.
They can have 100 victories. If it is 100 victories in 130 games, they are Expert. But if it is 100 victoris in 900 games, they are "average players".

[Phreekshow1]

it also means they know how to win better than me. If they have 100 wins under their belt and I have 5 still not really fair.

[Shaq Jenkins]

Average level is way too broadly defined. A person who has only won 4 games out of 100 games played is not average level. I really think BGA needs to create a category for people ranked below 1400. It could be called "Apprentice Level" or "Novice Level."

[makkuu]

In almost all situations it's your decision to play someone, you aren't forced into it. And you have access to their full stats to help you decide.

So I assume the only way you could have an issue is if you created a real-time game with "Average and below", someone joined and the game began so quickly that you couldn't check them and kick them out if you didn't approve of their stats. I guess it could be argued that as the joining player must confirm that he agrees to play this match, the hosting player should have a last confirmation too - at least in real-time games.

[Liallan]

Average level is way too broadly defined. A person who has only won 4 games out of 100 games played is not average level. I really think BGA needs to create a category for people ranked below 1400. It could be called "Apprentice Level" or "Novice Level."

I suspect they don't want people feeling bad, but I agree that separating out a lower level of player would be a good idea, although I think I'd make it 1300, since the higher ones are in 200-point increments. (I'd rather they just create more levels, period, but that's a different thing.)

This could work if they'd find the appropriate name for it that doesn't make them sound like "bad" players. (Though quite personally it wouldn't bother me if it said "sucker players." I know when I suck at something. )

[Willie333b]

http://forum.boardgamearena.com/viewtop ... ilit=Level.

[DrKarotte]

Why not simply remove these "translations" of an ELO value?

a) Is someone who has high ELO in mainly luck based games (eg Yatzy) really a "good" player or "expert" or simply someone who has more luck than others? If ELO is very high he apparently is an expert in choosing his opponents wisely to climb up in ELO...

b) The restriction system can be built on ELO values, too. (Restriction "good players and above" = "ELO >1600" and so on). There would also be the possibility to define minimum and maximum values on your own, which would mean more flexibilty.

[Shaq Jenkins]

Average level is way too broadly defined. A person who has only won 4 games out of 100 games played is not average level. I really think BGA needs to create a category for people ranked below 1400. It could be called "Apprentice Level" or "Novice Level."

I suspect they don't want people feeling bad, but I agree that separating out a lower level of player would be a good idea, although I think I'd make it 1300, since the higher ones are in 200-point increments. (I'd rather they just create more levels, period, but that's a different thing.)

This could work if they'd find the appropriate name for it that doesn't make them sound like "bad" players. (Though quite personally it wouldn't bother me if it said "sucker players." I know when I suck at something. )

I think you're definitely right that BGA won't do this because they don't want to make people feel bad.

But we can't be good, or even average, at every single game we play. There's some games I play on here where I'm below 1400, and I wouldn't be offended if I were labelled as a Novice or "bad" player because I actually am bad at the game, lol.

Why not simply remove these "translations" of an ELO value?

a) Is someone who has high ELO in mainly luck based games (eg Yatzy) really a "good" player or "expert" or simply someone who has more luck than others? If ELO is very high he apparently is an expert in choosing his opponents wisely to climb up in ELO...

b) The restriction system can be built on ELO values, too. (Restriction "good players and above" = "ELO >1600" and so on). There would also be the possibility to define minimum and maximum values on your own, which would mean more flexibilty.

I agree that ELO is meaningless in luck based games. I don't pay attention to ELO in games like Love Letter or co-op games like Saboteur.

ELO makes more sense when it's connected to 2 player strategy games. ELO rankings for 2 player Seasons, for example, are pretty accurate.

[asd123321]

I would like to specify a minimum ELO as a number to exclude the bad average ones