Arena Idea: Count the peak of points not the current score

[Ranior]

It doesn't matter if they can hit all the players--it just creates poor incentives for some games, and that's really bad.

[Wonderful Plays]

It doesn't matter if they can hit all the players--it just creates poor incentives for some games, and that's really bad.

It's kingmaking and it's reportable and avoidable with a red thumb.
In current system they can park and create a 2nd account that will do exactly the same.

[Ranior]

Eh, it's not reportable, or rather you can report it but nothing will ever be done. BGA's moderation has made it pretty clear over the years that they won't take actions like that, as it's very hard for them to make judgement calls on what sorts of kingmaking is/isn't allowed. And I think that's the right line for them to take, as it can be really tough to know where the line is. Kingmaking is inherent in any 4p game, there will always be situations and moves and plays you can point to that hand the game to someone else. I'm sure I can find many examples of moves that some would declare are kingmaking where the player themself had no real clue while they were doing it and shouldn't be punished. But yes, you can red thumb those players if you think they're engaging in that, but it doesn't change the fact it is happening and impacting the overall ecosystem of play whereas the easier option, and what I'm advocating for, is that this change not be made.

I do agree the fact that players can create alternate accounts and play in the same arena season is a really bad feature and should be explicitly against the terms of service and should be a bannable offense. Players should only be allowed to compete with one account in an arena season.

Ultimately though, I'm never going to see this from the way you do, as I just don't find parking to be a problem that needs to solved. The seasons are only 3 months long, and parking isn't hurting anyone.

[Wonderful Plays]

You still haven't replied to my red thumb suggestion which solves all your problems.

Parking is preventing people from playing, if we are interested in best competition where best players are playing against each other (which I think arena should be) I think it's a big problem.

[nmego]

(This post has been edited in an organized manner.)

I don't think it is a good idea for a top player to:
- After reaching peak, spend time sabotaging other top players, while counting on their peak.

Here's why:
1. Other top players should be able to recognize such plays.
2. I think we mostly agree that's an act of a poor unsportsmanship, so that person would lose the respect of the other top players.
3. A simple redthumb is sufficient, as Wonderful Plays said. And we can just give a public redthumb (Because it is kingmaking) and they would lose reputation, and they would find it harder to find matches vs other good players.
4. It is just a waste of time. It is not fun to jump in the queue and target others purposefully.
5. While you're spending time doing that, others that you haven't managed to sabotage, or that have redthumbed you and therefore immune to such sabotage attempts, will be able to catch up, while you aren't at your peak so it is harder to catch up with them.

So, I think this is problem is not such a big deal on its own. And the idea is worthwhile enough to pursue.

Here's what this idea would achieve:
1. More games in Arena
2. More competition
3. Faster time to find games.
4. Discourage parking.
5. Make it rewarding to play more games.

That's why I'm convinced that this is a good idea. And 3 months isn't really a short period of time imo.

[Ranior]

I don't think it's a good idea for top players to engage in this sort of thing, but I do expect it will happen sometimes. I just don't like systems that have perverse incentives sometimes, and this is one of those things. I'm pretty sure this will impact some games, and even if it's a few, I just don't like it.

But I still don't buy the argument that there are advantages to switching to peak rating--I just don't like that. I think it's going to extra reward those players that are capable of playing hundreds of games during the 3 month period, I think it leads to weird incentives when you can keep playing while your peak rating may already be locked in/determined, and I just don't find parking to be an issue that needs solving. I also think this system is very unlikely to lead to substantially more games/competition, unless there is way more parking going on in some games than I am seeing--it would seem only in the last month or so of a season there are a small handful of players high enough rated that they want to park. That's a very small set of players that I think this change would impact, so I don't think it leads much of anywhere.

[dschingis27]

But I still don't buy the argument that there are advantages to switching to peak rating--I just don't like that. I think it's going to extra reward those players that are capable of playing hundreds of games during the 3 month period,

That's exactly like it is already. The max score system wouldn't favor big time investment more than the current system. In both systems, the more time you invest, the higher the chance for a good streak, which ultimately determines your position in the end.

I guess the parking issue is mostly an issue for the very top players. BUT I suspect (I can't prove) that there is also a lot of unwanted parking behind the top players. When you reach a position you are kind of satisfied with, you are incentivized to stop playing. That should never be the case for a gaming site. You should be easily encouraged to try to get higher. But in the current system, the decision to continue feels very heavy (because, yes of course, competitive people do care for the ranks they achieved and don't want to loose them). The problem is solved with the max score system.

There are risks/properties of the max score system that we need to be aware of: First, in the max score system, you will have Arena sessions in which your rank does not change at all and overall your rank does change at a lower pace. That means that there might be less "adrenaline" when playing Arena, there is less "weight" on the very next game. Second: In the current system, you are often inevatably way below a rating you think you deserve. So you play another game. And another game. And another one. You are motivated by loss aversion, you often don't want to be ranked below a rating you already reached and that keeps you playing. On the contrary, loss aversion as motivation is much less present in the max score system. Both these aspects could lead to a drop of the number of Arena games if a max score system was introduced. But I actually do not miss those games I only play out of loss aversion. And most importantly: Since there is nothing to loose in the max score system, it feels much easier to get back to Arena after a break of days or weeks or whatever.

In the max score system, from a psychological perspective, it feels much easier to stop playing / have a break after a (streak of) defeat(s). I consider this to be a good thing! But it could also mean that the raw number of games played will drop after max score is introduced at first. However, in the long run, the much less frustration and the much easier getting-back can motivate people more sustainably. In the current system, the rush of getting to a high rating, falling down, getting high again might be exciting for some time. But in the long run, people might drain out and question the meaning of the Elite rating. (At least that's exactly what happened to me and I don't consider myself to be a very special human being. )

All in all I think that the max score system has much more benefits than drawbacks. Also consider that Arena is mostly played by people who really like progress. (At least this is how the not-Elite part of Arena is designed.) The max score system would satisfy both the progress lovers and the competetive players.

This post got much longer than expected but I think I made some important points.

[Wonderful Plays]

Great input dschingis27 and nmego. Couldn't said it better myself.