Why ELO doesn't suit to BGA

[ollyfish2002]

The ranking in each game should be done on players with "active" elo, not players coming here to play once each month against average players with elo off to keep their places and bonuses. Check what happens in Quoridor...

[demiurgsage]

It looks like your system will encourage top players not to play each other

This is the contrary : a Master who only play against weak players will never get enough points to become champion.

E.g. there are 20 masters in a game. If you are one of the season's leaders, you will try to find a Master that has the least chances to end the season above you. It's too risky for you to play with your neighbors in the leaderboard. In fact the best opponent for you the one who has already lost chances to beat you in the current season. You won't play Experts, you will play unlucky Masters.

[Willie333b]

In one metromaniab game, I won and then lost 15 ELO; maybe we can use the ratings of the flyordie website.

[dudi2]

The ranking in each game should be done on players with "active" elo, not players coming here to play once each month against average players with elo off to keep their places and bonuses. Check what happens in Quoridor...

+1

What about being an active player for the ranking only, if at least one match of the last 10 matches played on each game was with "active" elo and at least one match played with "active" elo in the last 3 months (time period like now)?

This avoids, that expert players can only play with elo off all the time.

For tournaments the number of prestige points should be divided by a factor of 5, if the tournament is being played with elo off.

[Oso]

_ when you beat an average player : +1 pt
_ when you beat a Good Player : + 10 pts
_ when you beat an Expert : + 100 pts
_ when you beat a Master : + 1000 pts
_ seasons points are reset to zero when each period (ex : year or season) begins.
_ at the end of the period, we attribute trophies based on who get the most points.

Master will play only vs master (for don't lose lot of ELO), if someone get 3 victories, you will need around 3000 victories vs random players for being competitive.

============

I don't think that a "new points" system would be good. Maybe could be a good idea if you can build a new SPECIAL tournament system for this like "LADDER". [EXAMPLE]

- People have 15 days to join a LADDER of a game (example: Seasons LADDER). It could have a limit like 200 players.
- After it you've 2 months for play with ALL players -or any players you can play-, +1 per win, -1 per loss.
- Who has more wins, get the season ladder trophy.

Games would be good in ELO OFF. As you know, people don't wanna play lot of games when get more than 1800 ELO. But also, who has more ELO takes advantage in ties.

[sourisdudesert]

Master will play only vs master (for don't lose lot of ELO)

If ELO is just a simple indicator, they won't care anymore losing ELO.

After it you've 2 months for play with ALL players -or any players you can play-, +1 per win, -1 per loss.

This is more or less the idea of what is proposed. But if you have +1 per win, the best way to win is to beat a lot of weak players - like it is today - so it doesn't change really. To have a champion we need that Masters plays against the other Masters (and so on), and I think everybody agrees that the proposed system is good for that

[demiurgsage]

_ when you beat an average player : +1 pt
I don't think that a "new points" system would be good.

I agree with Oso on this point.

I think any system that take into account current broken ELO system won't be good.

You need to change it in these ways
1. The rating of a player with big number of games should change very slow. If you played 200 games every new game give you only a little expirience. The rating should reflect your skill.
2. The changes of the ratings in result of a game should take into account the randomnicity of the game. A victory in a skill-based game should increase your rating more than a victory in a luck-based game.
3. The rating of a player who play too little should decrease over time.
4. (Not necessarily, but can make rating system more stable.) New players should start with no rating. They'll receive a rating after 10 games or after playing vs 20 players total in games with rating. Until they get the rating, their results won't affect the ratings of other players.

After implementation of a new rating system you can make any leaderboard you want. I think the best solution would be to make 2 ratings. One for tournaments players, in which places will be distributed during main tournament of the season. And one for all players, it can be point-based. But the difference between victory vs master and victory vs expert shouldn't be too big. Better make the number of points given smooth. (E.g. 100 points for victory vs 1st place, 92 points vs 2nd, 85 vs 3rd, ..., 55 vs 10th, ..., 30 vs 25th, 12 vs 50th, ..., 2 vs 100, and 1 point for victory against player lower than 100th place.)

[demiurgsage]

Master will play only vs master (for don't lose lot of ELO)

If ELO is just a simple indicator, they won't care anymore losing ELO.

ELO isn't just a number, you use it to define who is a master and who isn't. So your leaderboard won't be fair as ELO isn't fair and players can manipulate it.

[sourisdudesert]

The rating of a player with big number of games should change very slow. If you played 200 games every new game give you only a little expirience.

Yes.
This was not possible at now because ELO was used for ranking, and little ELO variation it was too discouraging for players who want to win points. But with the new ranking system we can do a more stable ELO.

ELO isn't just a number, you use it to define who is a master and who isn't

True. BUT, being a master won't bring you much :

• The important thing (ie : points you win for a victory) is the status of your opponent, not yours. So being less than a Master is a kind of advantage too (as your opponent will gain less point than you in case of a victory).
• One the other hand, being a master will help you to play against other masters.

... so I think this is quite balanced, and that finally you won't care much about your ELO

[demiurgsage]

The rating of a player with big number of games should change very slow. If you played 200 games every new game give you only a little expirience.

Yes.
This was not possible at now because ELO was used for ranking, and little ELO variation it was too discouraging for players who want to win points.

Of course it discourages players from attempt to jump over their head. But it also decreases fear of top-rated players to lose their precious ELO and makes players be sure that their rating reflect their skill.

ELO isn't just a number, you use it to define who is a master and who isn't

True. BUT, being a master won't bring you much :

• The important thing (ie : points you win for a victory) is the status of your opponent, not yours. So being less than a Master is a kind of advantage too (as your opponent will gain less point than you in case of a victory).
• One the other hand, being a master will help you to play against other masters.

... so I think this is quite balanced, and that finally you won't care much about your ELO

If no master will play with you unless you are master, I suppose it's a very big disadvantage and isn't balanced at all.