BGA's idea of a beginner

[ojomojojojo]

Very often when I play a team -based game like Saboteur or maybe Belote, I dont like to play with inexperienced players. It can be really annoying if you play with logic and common knowledge because you know the game and are playing with someone who has not played as much and doesn't know how to utilize what they have. I usually put "Average Level and Above" but the problem is that BGA's idea of average is indeed not very average. It seems after playing one game, you are no longer a beginner. It can even be a game where someone quit or you played with all your real life friends who were just equally as bad. To avoid the players, I started writing in the description that you must have at least 20 games experience. However some players are still trying to join and just ignore it. I would remove the player regardless but I dont like to do it because it may seem to them like im being harsh. It's even caused a lot of strife between me and other players. Is there a way the definition of an "average player can be changed on this site. One game shouldnt make you average.I believe beginners can form their own table

[dudi2]

Why not using "Good players and above"?

[demiurgsage]

I think one day they create a group for players below average. Now all you can do is to play with "Good and above" when it's possible and continue to kick weak players out when it's not possible.

[Shaq Jenkins]

Why not using "Good players and above"?

Good players and above is way too restricting, especially for a game like Saboteur in which there are not that many people ranked as good players to begin with.

Can a moderator weigh in on this topic? I think this is a huge issue that needs addressed, and to my knowledge, I haven't seen a moderator discuss their rationale for letting a player with 2 wins out of 40 games played be considered average level (and I can guarantee that they only got those two wins because someone quit the game).

Why isn't there a category for people who aren't beginners but are clearly not good at the game? A below average player will completely ruin 3+player games such as Puerto Rico, Tokaido, Legendary Inventors, etc. since they will inevitably make questionable moves that imbalance the game.

[veme]

I've always wondered about this myself. I think I saw a thread one time where it was indicated that they don't want to hurt people's feelings by calling them 'below average' or 'bad', but I could be misremembering. Clearly though, there needs to be more well-defined skill levels, as 2 of them just indicate that someone has ELO between 0 and 1600. This is especially problematic if you are a non-member, because you can't see ELO at all and setting a table to 'Good and above' is your only option if you want to have any assurance that your opponents aren't crap at a game.

Anyway, maybe average should be 1400-1600, and we should try to come up with a neutral word for worse players... maybe 'learning'? Or, a partial solution I've always favored - stop hiding ELO from non-members and just let people make tables with more customizable ELO windows. Things like only allowing players to join who are within X points of your ELO. But I guess they think hiding ELO makes them more money than improving the matching system would (I disagree).

Actually, now that there is functionality to hide games which you can't join in the lobby, this could be done without even revealing ELO to non-members. Perhaps it is time to reinvestigate the idea of letting people set more specific ELO requirements at their tables.

[demiurgsage]

Anyway, maybe average should be 1400-1600

It's not so easy, ELO doesn't reflect the real skill, in some games 1600 can be a high skill, but in other games it can be average or low skill. Sourisdudesert said they want to change the rating system. Probably they wanted to solve a lot of issues (including this) with one change. But as he does a lot of different things we can't guess when some changes will be made in this area.

But I guess they think hiding ELO makes them more money than improving the matching system would.

I think you are completely wrong. They likely don't think about money at all. More than 95% of content on BGA is free. So there is no need for most users to buy membership.

Perhaps it is time to reinvestigate the idea of letting people set more specific ELO requirements at their tables.

Anyway it probably improves the site right now without making big changes.

[veme]

It's not so easy, ELO doesn't reflect the real skill, in some games 1600 can be a high skill, but in other games it can be average or low skill.

This is true, but unless you somehow adjust ELO levels to the game (for instance, top 20% considered master or something), there is no way around this. Nor is it desirable to get around it, IMO. Is there really such a thing as a Can't Stop master? Games with more luck will always have lower average ELOs; the solution is more groups with more specific ELO ranges, or just letting people choose their own ranges.

I think you are completely wrong. They likely don't think about money at all. More than 95% of content on BGA is free. So there is no need for most users to buy membership.

That's fine if you disagree with me, but riddle me this: if they are not hiding ELO from non-members to get more memberships purchased, why the heck are they doing it? Just to be mean? It is their right to run their site how they want of course, nothing wrong with making money, but let's not be naive about it.

[demiurgsage]

riddle me this: if they are not hiding ELO from non-members to get more memberships purchased, why the heck are they doing it? Just to be mean? It is their right to run their site how they want of course, nothing wrong with making money, but let's not be naive about it.

Their monetization policy is puzzle for me too. Actually I don't know how many people are ready to pay for these numbers. The one thing I definitely know is visible ELO prevents people to enjoy the game and makes them more nervous. When my beginner account was changed to standard account I started to play more for fun than for numbers.
As for your question I guess that they hid ELO long ago when they couldn't offer anything better to members.

[Jest Phulin]

It isn't all about the numbers for all people.

I became a member to support the site, not to see my ELO. I'd like to think there are others like me.

[demiurgsage]

I became a member to support the site, not to see my ELO. I'd like to think there are others like me.

Of course, but you made a donation, not a purchase. If they wanted we think this way, they would make a "Donate" button. They created two services: free and premium. We can compare them. There is not much difference between them. So it's not clear what motivates users to buy premium.
Although Carcassonne is a great addition to premium games and slightly changes balance.