No, it's not. It's broken. It's more of an equivalent than in football someone would lead with 5 points with 2 rounds to go. They then elected to not play at all, because that would count as draw and they would get the 2 points they need. If that was the rules, then it would be totally ok and everyone would do it in that situation, but not really interesting or good sportmanship.
Arena needs rating decay
Forum rules
Warning: challenging a moderation in Forum = 10 days ban
More info & details about how to challenge a moderation: viewtopic.php?p=119756
Warning: challenging a moderation in Forum = 10 days ban
More info & details about how to challenge a moderation: viewtopic.php?p=119756
Re: Arena needs rating decay
Re: Arena needs rating decay
You're right, I came to the same conclusion after thinking about it again, definitly not my greatest idea :/sprockitz wrote: ↑07 July 2020, 14:47That solution is saying you can’t play turn based. Turn based games often take a month plus and when you need 50 games to be competitive you’ve eliminated all turn based players.Chauff wrote: ↑07 July 2020, 12:11I agree with that, it's a huge flaw. You can also climb by alterning winning and losing streaks. And it's very hard to detect.jaspingrobus wrote: ↑06 July 2020, 22:40 Yeah not playing for 2 months and just pushing in the last minute (you can actually set up a lot of correspondence games and push the "right" ones at the end of the season). This feels like winning the sniping auction instead of pushing the best players to the top.
An easy solution would be a simple rule: a player should only play one game (for each game) in Arena mode at a time.
Re: Arena needs rating decay
I agree with that. Taking into account the peak score could be effective to encourage top players to continue playing after they obtained a good place in the rankings, and could eventually prevent them from being "sniped" at the end of the season. There would still be issues regarding turn based games though.
However, I really don't like the idea of a rating decay.
Re: Arena needs rating decay
I also agree on that point, but the problem is that it would require the final tournament to be turn-based, and some real time players would probably be reluctant to participate. And BGA doesn't support tournaments for games with more than 2 players for the moment...
-
Wonderful Plays
- Posts: 247
- Joined: 20 September 2018, 13:06
Re: Arena needs rating decay
I agree that tournament is the only way to determine "champion".
I also agree that rating decay is not perfect.
I also agree that we have to take into consideration the correspondence (turn based) players.
BUT
I just want good players to play Arena. I don't care how I end up neccesarilly, I just want to have a chance to play against the best.
I climbed to as high as #2 twice this season, but couldn't reallisticly challenge for #1, because of the point system.
I think decay is the most ellegant and simple way to achieve what is in the spirit of the arena -> constant competition, while having downsides I think the good outweight the bad.
As to how to prevent sniping: I think the final hour of the competition should be random and not known to the public, so you can't try to do that.
I also agree that rating decay is not perfect.
I also agree that we have to take into consideration the correspondence (turn based) players.
BUT
I just want good players to play Arena. I don't care how I end up neccesarilly, I just want to have a chance to play against the best.
I climbed to as high as #2 twice this season, but couldn't reallisticly challenge for #1, because of the point system.
I think decay is the most ellegant and simple way to achieve what is in the spirit of the arena -> constant competition, while having downsides I think the good outweight the bad.
As to how to prevent sniping: I think the final hour of the competition should be random and not known to the public, so you can't try to do that.
Re: Arena needs rating decay
Haha. Your random last hour is a very elegant solution.
Re: Arena needs rating decay
Decay is not very good, but will make the games which have few people playing more active.
If the idea is to find the best player, then limiting the number of games per player per Arena season could be a solution.
I also think that people from the same ip should not be able to play against each other in Arena. Even if they are different individuals. Normal games are fine.
If the idea is to find the best player, then limiting the number of games per player per Arena season could be a solution.
I also think that people from the same ip should not be able to play against each other in Arena. Even if they are different individuals. Normal games are fine.
Re: Arena needs rating decay
Here is my 2 cents worth:
I have to agree that the system is not set up right. I really only play two games on this site. Backgammon and The Battle for Hill 218. I am not quite as good as I think I am at Backgammon, but love to play it, and have never reached the top of that game in the arena, nor in ELO. I play lots of games in the arena, but as has been pointed out, a win gains few points, a loss, looses many. So though I can climb up the arena ladder, I usually fall down very fast.
The Battle for Hill 218, on the other hand, I am not very good at it, even though I enjoy it a lot. I loose most of my games there. Last season, I was able to break into the Elite League, but mostly due to luck. I found that my skills in that game meant I would loose most of the games there, so if I played, I went lower and lower in the rankings. (in other words, no incentive for me to play) This season, I tried again and by some miracle got the right combination so as to win several games in a row which put me into the Elite League again, and against all odds, I ended up on top. Not only does this not reflect anything close to actual ability, I noticed that last season's Reigning Champion (as of this writing) has not even been admitted into the Elite League yet. I have played this player on many many occasions and almost always loose. Ok, here is an embarrassing admission: Looking at my stats, I've played him 72 times, and won only twice. I think there is no question that he is clearly superior and understands the game much better than I do. I've found that by getting just the right cards dealt in the right order, it is much easier to win. But 2/72 or a 3% win rate should be clear evidence that he is better. So, why am I at the top and the champion not even close? Answer: the arena is not working properly.
I agree that it is set up to encourage play, but only when you are trying to climb. If you get up to the top, there is very little incentive to keep playing. At least that is how I feel about it. Otherwise, I love this site, and really appreciate the good work of the admins/owners to make it a fun place to be. Also thanks to the players, lots of fun people here. Thanks everyone.
I have to agree that the system is not set up right. I really only play two games on this site. Backgammon and The Battle for Hill 218. I am not quite as good as I think I am at Backgammon, but love to play it, and have never reached the top of that game in the arena, nor in ELO. I play lots of games in the arena, but as has been pointed out, a win gains few points, a loss, looses many. So though I can climb up the arena ladder, I usually fall down very fast.
The Battle for Hill 218, on the other hand, I am not very good at it, even though I enjoy it a lot. I loose most of my games there. Last season, I was able to break into the Elite League, but mostly due to luck. I found that my skills in that game meant I would loose most of the games there, so if I played, I went lower and lower in the rankings. (in other words, no incentive for me to play) This season, I tried again and by some miracle got the right combination so as to win several games in a row which put me into the Elite League again, and against all odds, I ended up on top. Not only does this not reflect anything close to actual ability, I noticed that last season's Reigning Champion (as of this writing) has not even been admitted into the Elite League yet. I have played this player on many many occasions and almost always loose. Ok, here is an embarrassing admission: Looking at my stats, I've played him 72 times, and won only twice. I think there is no question that he is clearly superior and understands the game much better than I do. I've found that by getting just the right cards dealt in the right order, it is much easier to win. But 2/72 or a 3% win rate should be clear evidence that he is better. So, why am I at the top and the champion not even close? Answer: the arena is not working properly.
I agree that it is set up to encourage play, but only when you are trying to climb. If you get up to the top, there is very little incentive to keep playing. At least that is how I feel about it. Otherwise, I love this site, and really appreciate the good work of the admins/owners to make it a fun place to be. Also thanks to the players, lots of fun people here. Thanks everyone.
Re: Arena needs rating decay
yasst won season 1, season 2 has just started, you briefly may have been in first place in season 2, a couple days into the season. That is very different from winning the season. yasst is nowhere to be found b/c yasst has only completed 1 game so far this season.ReelMcKoy wrote: ↑09 July 2020, 16:23
The Battle for Hill 218, on the other hand, I am not very good at it, even though I enjoy it a lot. I loose most of my games there. Last season, I was able to break into the Elite League, but mostly due to luck. I found that my skills in that game meant I would loose most of the games there, so if I played, I went lower and lower in the rankings. (in other words, no incentive for me to play) This season, I tried again and by some miracle got the right combination so as to win several games in a row which put me into the Elite League again, and against all odds, I ended up on top. Not only does this not reflect anything close to actual ability, I noticed that last season's Reigning Champion (as of this writing) has not even been admitted into the Elite League yet. I have played this player on many many occasions and almost always loose. Ok, here is an embarrassing admission: Looking at my stats, I've played him 72 times, and won only twice. I think there is no question that he is clearly superior and understands the game much better than I do. I've found that by getting just the right cards dealt in the right order, it is much easier to win. But 2/72 or a 3% win rate should be clear evidence that he is better. So, why am I at the top and the champion not even close? Answer: the arena is not working properly.
Re: Arena needs rating decay
yasst won season 1, season 2 has just started, you briefly may have been in first place in season 2, a couple days into the season. That is very different from winning the season. yasst is nowhere to be found b/c yasst has only completed 1 game so far this season.
You are absolutely right. The point I'm trying to make is that if the arena intent is to cause people to play more, it has failed in regards to me. I have zero incentive to play now that I'm near the top of the ladder (Number 2 as of this writing as another player has gotten ahead of me). True others will play and get farther along up the ladder, but the surest way for me to lose ranking now is to play more. If I do, I know I'll lose most matches and steadily go down. It may be that I'll go down anyway as others gain more points, but I'm quite sure the process will be slower that way than if I play.
I don't know how to even propose this be remedied, but I'm fairly certain that those on top don't care to play once they get there. My experience anyway.