Expert and Above

[RobertBr]

Expert is currently 500 (old 1800+) while Strong is 300. In creating a table with limite access this creates quite a substantial jump which is awkward in some multiplayer games.

As an example, I can open a strong and above Carcassonne game (300+) and that will fill up pretty fast (I filled in three in the last few hours). However, from an ELO point of view those are risky games, as all of the players are rated below 400, over a hundred points adrift of my own rating, so anything other than a win will generally lose points. On the other hand there are only about 50 players over 500 so finding a group for a four or five player game is difficult (as some will only play a particular variant etc.)

Could there be an option for restricting tables to players whose Elo is over 400?

[fuonlynu]

since current elo system does not come even close to show the community whom are good players I wouldn't worry about it. focus on win
loss games played and there percentage.current elo don't mean squat but a small time frame

[Liallan]

Once again, I think there is just too big a gap between "ability levels." The names may not be appropriate either. (What used to be "good player" for me is now "strong player," and IMO makes me sound better than I am.) A gap of 200 in this system is a much, much bigger gap than the old system, such a huge proportion.

Rather than changing the restriction on the invites, I'd rather see them fixing up the ranges first. Like a higher number for "good," and an extra level in between somewhere, etc.

Of course, another solution to this, which has been brought up before, is allowing the table admin to put in their own restriction numbers, so that you'd be able to manually put >400. This was already an issue before the change in ELO. And now that have this Karma thing, it would be nice to manually enter a number for that as well.

[RobertBr]

Something that did occur to me later was replacing the current levels with a single option for 'players of similar ability' which could be set at some proportion, such as X+/-PY. Say you set it at 0.2, then a player with a 200 rating would open a table to players with ratings from 160 to 240, and a player at 500 would open one to players between 400 and 600.
Since its relatively difficult for Elo to track ability in multiplayer games it seems even more important that players do not have to face opponents who may be substantially under-graded.

[Liallan]

I hate to say this, but I wonder if that math would get to some people too much. In the overall scheme of things, the majority of gamers are pretty nerdy people who probably can handle percentages/proportions like that, but I'm also sure that would freak some people out. At another place I play, we have the ability to put a +/- x, so I can put like +/- 200. There are people that totally confuse what that means.

Meaning, basically, I just think being able to put your own ELO range would be easier for the overall membership to do. And I also like the idea of being able to use different numbers for top and bottom of the range.

[RobertBr]

The only concern with setting your own Elo is that for multiplayer games it would always be in your interest to set Own Elo + X.

I have just played badly and am in danger of finishing last in a four player game, the first time in about 30 games. That is going to cause my Elo to crash. On the other hand I just got a draw for first place in another four player game, and received 0 points. Not complaining, or at least not too much, but this tends to create a weird effect under the present system where there are barriers at certain points in the Elo system, which a more graduated scale would solve.

The +/- options sounds better.

I've relatively little sympathy for people whose numeracy is that poor.

[Liallan]

The only concern with setting your own Elo is that for multiplayer games it would always be in your interest to set Own Elo + X.

Well, first, if you were allowed to set your own levels, you could do that. If you're 300, you can make a range of 300-450. But you can't say it's "always" in someone's interests to do it that way. Everyone doesn't have the same goals when choosing ranges. That's the beauty of setting your own level - everyone gets to do the way they want for their own reasons.

Not complaining, or at least not too much, but this tends to create a weird effect under the present system where there are barriers at certain points in the Elo system, which a more graduated scale would solve.

Won't argue with you there. I think that 100 minimum is a little weird and does compromise the system. I also think merely dropping 1300 off was a little strange - that's just not proportional.

I've relatively little sympathy for people whose numeracy is that poor.

Well... I understand where you're coming from, and I don't really have "sympathy" for it, but I accept the reality of it. Not to mention it might be more common than you think, though granted, gamers are a more geeky crowd. But it shouldn't be a prerequisite for making an invitation. And even I don't want to do it as a percent. While I might be able to do something in my head (and have more than one calculator around), I just don't feel like it while trying to make an invitation.

[sprockitz]

not sure what benefit a percent would give. the idea behind the Elo system is a 50 point difference is the same whether the two Elo's are 800 and 750 or 200 and 150. It is only the algebraic difference that matters not the geometric.

[Liallan]

not sure what benefit a percent would give. the idea behind the Elo system is a 50 point difference is the same whether the two Elo's are 800 and 750 or 200 and 150. It is only the algebraic difference that matters not the geometric.

Also a good point that I'm ashamed to admit I didn't think of.

[RobertBr]

not sure what benefit a percent would give. the idea behind the Elo system is a 50 point difference is the same whether the two Elo's are 800 and 750 or 200 and 150. It is only the algebraic difference that matters not the geometric.

While true of the performance measure it is not true of the number of players. If I were ranked 200 there would be a lot of players within 50 points (Elo equiv 1450 to 1550) but if I am ranked 500 the number of players within 50 points will be very small. A percentage net adjusts for that by creating wider band as the players tend to become thinner. A single absolute band might work but it would need to be quite broad or would be unworkable for players with high ratings.