Need feedback from turn-based players to counter ELO boosting

[demiurgsage]

I'm not understanding why calculating ELO change based on starting ELO instead of ending ELO would require recalculating all opponents' ELOs also.

looks like you understand it wrong. The idea was to apply the result of the game to the moment in the past when the game started. Recent games influence your Elo more than previous games. If a player didn't know what games become recent, it would be more difficult to him to manipulate his Elo. Also there is another issue, turn-based games may last few monthes. It will take too much time to improve your Elo without recalculation.

[Fysh99]

Could you please explain your note? I'm not understanding why calculating ELO change based on starting ELO instead of ending ELO would require recalculating all opponents' ELOs also.

While I can see that a player may increase their skill during a game by playing several simultaneous games, I don't see this as a large enough change to affect everyone else's rating.

I would suggest just using the starting ELO of each player to calculate ELO change. Unless, of course, that figure is difficult to obtain as only the current ELO is listed in the database.

Using the ELO at the time of game start would actually make the problem much worse. If someone stores up 150 winning games, and then cashes each one of them in as though his rating was still low, the boost would be many times bigger than the current system (where each win diminishes further points gained from the next win).

[Jest Phulin]

Hm, this will take some math to explain my misunderstanding, and I'm too tired right now to do it. I also have a busy day tomorrow, but hopefully Sunday I can explain why I'm confused as to why using starting ELO values for all games would require recalculating everyone's subsequent scores.

[demiurgsage]

Hm, this will take some math to explain my misunderstanding, and I'm too tired right now to do it. I also have a busy day tomorrow, but hopefully Sunday I can explain why I'm confused as to why using starting ELO values for all games would require recalculating everyone's subsequent scores.

I think that you are right in your statement, but you solve not the task sourisdudesert talked about.

[sprockitz]

Could you please explain your note? I'm not understanding why calculating ELO change based on starting ELO instead of ending ELO would require recalculating all opponents' ELOs also.

While I can see that a player may increase their skill during a game by playing several simultaneous games, I don't see this as a large enough change to affect everyone else's rating.

I would suggest just using the starting ELO of each player to calculate ELO change. Unless, of course, that figure is difficult to obtain as only the current ELO is listed in the database.

Using the ELO at the time of game start would actually make the problem much worse. If someone stores up 150 winning games, and then cashes each one of them in as though his rating was still low, the boost would be many times bigger than the current system (where each win diminishes further points gained from the next win).

The point is that all game results are calculated at the time the game started. So you would not be able to store up a bunch of winning games b/c the end time of a game would no longer matter. Since this system would require knowledge of future events (the result of the game when it started), whenever a game is finished it requires going back to the start time of that game and recalculating all games played after that point.

[Fysh99]

The point is that all game results are calculated at the time the game started. So you would not be able to store up a bunch of winning games b/c the end time of a game would no longer matter. Since this system would require knowledge of future events (the result of the game when it started), whenever a game is finished it requires going back to the start time of that game and recalculating all games played after that point.

Yes, I know and that could work if it was practical (which it is not).

My point of discussion was in particular response to Jest Phulin who's idea was simply applying the ELO formula based on starting ELO ratings, not the current ones. That idea would actually make the problem worse as I tried to explain.

[ollyfish2002]

my2p
I think ELO should take into account the number of already finished games (in the K factor).
I can explain : new player (A) in BGA can be very good player in real life = 1500 ELO.
Winning against Master or Expert (B) should boost A ELO and flame down B ELO (That is why many Masters play ELO off ! Take No Risk)
Modifying K factor by the number of finished games, could limited ELO boosting at once.

[Rudolf]

Hello Souris,
relative to Dark (but I agree, it's a very small audience), I think it's better to keep several parallel games. Because, with options, you've got a lot of different games (it's like another game, different strategies, different boards choices). It will be more the case when I will add "Ennemy Inside" extension.
For the Elo (in solo mode, but it's not the whole subject of your post), I think the way to give Elo like I did seems equitable: more you've got ELO points, less you win (after an amount, you win only 1 point) and more you lose... But I cannot do this for all players, because the rank seems not available in php side (I get it from the client side, and cannot get it when it's hidden for non premium).

So In my point of view, you can allow max 2 turns based/game (non tourmanent) ... but for each set of options combinations ...
(means you can play more in different way of the games)

[dudi2]

What about increasing the priority of "last move"-tables to very high in a way that "Go to next table" leads to these games? Perhaps the game progress percentage can help here.

Ordering criterium: (Time left)*(100%-percentage)

[ollyfish2002]

I disagree for limited turn-based games. As we cannot play tournaments with more than 2 players, some of us created tournaments on their own. We then play turn-based games against each other's and scored results outside of BGA. At start, we created lots of table.