Board Game Arena

Agreed ^ But the main problem with that, is it could take a lot of time filtering out those things for EVERY SINGLE GAME. And it can be a little unpractical to do.

It is easier to just decide on one competitive variant. It will also help people focus on a single variant and try to master it. Though, in retro respect it is kind of forcing. But you can still play games as normal as you want.

Or another idea, start with "one competitive variant" and maybe each month or so, replace it with another variant. And maybe eventually get to a point where you can have more than one competitive variant at once.

For example, 3-player 7 Wonders is more strategic than 4-player one, but both are good games and many player strongly prefer one vs. another. Also there is a not-so-small group of players who prefer 5+ player games. All these are essentially quite different games in terms of strategy. If BGA will force specific player count, they may lose a lot of players. From a variant perspective - if BGA ever get expansions of 7 Wonders, this would clearly be different trophies.

I'd say the best option by far is multiple tournaments / trophies per game, not necessarily covering all the permutations, but at least having 2-5 most popular combinations. If that's impossible - let people chose what they want.

About having a "2-player" ladder and a multiplayer ladder, I think this might be a good idea for some games, which really differ in both versions.
Mostly games which have some special unique rule for 2-player version.
For example, in Race For The Galaxy, i 2-player games you can choose 2 phases, while in multiplayer you choose only one, and this has *huge* strategic implications (you could argue that multiplayer RftG is not popular and not as competitive, it's just for the sake of the argument).
In Tokaido 2-player, you have the neutral meeple, which changes everything in the way it's played.
Similarly, some extensions/variants drastically change the way the game feels/plays.

I understand if you stand in your position of "one ladder per game", but please consider (and think about) the possibility of having 2 ladders for only a handful of games that are both popular, and very different in 2 formats (whether player number, variant, or both).
Well, if you disagree, at least there is the "season rotation" thing ^^ (and yes, I totally agree that not all variations are needed, just a handful of them)

About "broken rankings" 1:
How will the matchmaking be? The competitive mode probably will not work properly without a new matchmaking/table creation. The matchmaking may search for opponents of similar rank/Elo. It should not be possible to select your opponents in any way: By creating a table and inviting players, by kicking players from the table etc. IMO, the best would be that you see against you will play not before you are at the table.

About "broken rankings" 2:
Every game played with more than 2 players may have a bad impact on the rakings, starting from balance problems in the game itself or in combination of experienced players and beginners (even the matchmaking described above may not find enough players of one level in certain games) up to cheating (kingmaking).

We have to consider that there are lots of people around who care a lot about ranks etc. who will be very ingenious exploiting any flaw in the system.

Nanaki404 wrote: ↑27 July 2019, 19:55 About having a "2-player" ladder and a multiplayer ladder, I think this might be a good idea for some games, which really differ in both versions.
Mostly games which have some special unique rule for 2-player version.
For example, in Race For The Galaxy, i 2-player games you can choose 2 phases, while in multiplayer you choose only one, and this has *huge* strategic implications (you could argue that multiplayer RftG is not popular and not as competitive, it's just for the sake of the argument).
In Tokaido 2-player, you have the neutral meeple, which changes everything in the way it's played.
Similarly, some extensions/variants drastically change the way the game feels/plays.

I understand if you stand in your position of "one ladder per game", but please consider (and think about) the possibility of having 2 ladders for only a handful of games that are both popular, and very different in 2 formats (whether player number, variant, or both).
Well, if you disagree, at least there is the "season rotation" thing ^^ (and yes, I totally agree that not all variations are needed, just a handful of them)

I second this. In a lot of games the 2 players version is heavily adjusted , with components of the game completely removed or new components added. They are like two different games. (e.g. Legendary Inventors, Tokaido, Puerto Rico) As a player who play multiplayer mainly and have to compare the elo with 2 players gamers, I would love a multiplayer ladder seperated from the 1 vs 1 people. (Feel bad when you are among the top players of multiplayers version of the game but not in even top 20 because elo is gained much more efficiently and reliably in 1 vs 1)

As of which no. should be the no. of players for multiplayers ranking, I think it should be decided by the popularity of each game mode (I think in Tokaido, >90% of players would choose 4 players out of 3/4/5 players), as well as variant setting ( I think >90% of player in 7 Wonders prefer to choose wonder side over not allowed to choose). For games with more fluid setting like Werewolves, the change of seasons should work great, with each season using a different popular setting.

sourisdudesert wrote: ↑03 July 2019, 13:32

Jest Phulin wrote: ↑03 July 2019, 00:06 "Why not a 1v1 ladder and a multiplayer ladder?"

Sorry, but we really want to have a single champion for each game, so only one ladder, like it is the case in real life championship.

That's a flawed comparison – how is there only one mode of competition for e.g. most of the Olympic sports? Summer or Winter, the norm is having multiple different sets of rules and circumstances that each are crowning champions without necessarily damaging the other disciplines. Many athletes even compete in multiple such disciplines at once! And that's not even mentioning the separated competitions for athletes considered male and female, respectively.
Which "real life" are you referring to, are you sure that these examples best model what you're trying to build, and are you absolutely sure that they actually support your idea of how it should look in the end?

Those who like 1vs1 still can play for normal mode throphy.

(Btw i think, as most of board games are designed for multiplayers, 1vs1 makes most games senseless.)

Oh, and hope there will be both Saboteur1 and Saboteur2 arena. Its like 2 different games not 2 variant.

I love BGA, and its very interesting you guys try to develop the competitive part.
Some comments:
** Is the current ELO system fair? Well for some games with higher amount of luck, and even higher amounts of luck needed if you play vs very skilled opponents… If you lose vs a far lower ranked player you lose a ton of points. So, if a player then finally becomes top 10, no.1 or similar. He maybe stops playing for a long while to keep the high total prestige or for some other reason.
** Going first or 2nd can mean a difference, and this adds to the random nature of losing ELO points, some sites have solved this by at least 2 matches with alternate sides and 6-8 matches for semi and finals
** ELO manipulation: I watched a guy advance on the ELO rating list in a game. I studied his matches and found out he mainly had played vs 2-3 opponents. I asked him and he said one of them was his mother and the other one was another relative… he had entered top 30 of the players in that game...
Making many accounts, lets say one at work, one at your brothers house and one at home… You can play vs yourself turnbased and different ip’s will show up. Or friends can help each other in different games, 'you help me/I help you' type of thing.
Using AI: I studied two of the top rated players in Quarto and found out that they had only played vs each other one(1) single time. And the match was a perfect play, last piece filled the board, and this goes for one of the other matches I studied for another top meet-up. So a question arose, they are this good or they have made their own AI and just tested it out vs each other…
++ One solution is maybe having two rating lists, and one of them can only come from points you gain from tournaments with enough participants. At least this would bring the most fair results. Yes?
++ Some system to force the highest ranked to play vs each other at least once per every 2nd month? (matches will come up automatically and you cant deny them)
++ Then you have the quality vs quantity issue: Playing a lot helps or?
++ One of the classic rises in ELO is to play mostly only with players with higher ELO than you. So you lose less and gain the most... I used this to get to top 10 in Cant Stop... 'Picking the right targets' strategy
++ Some online games tries to solve cheating in rank by having a 'find random opponent within the filter settings' button (you cant directly pick your own opponents). In some games even this has been exploited for manipulation... clicking at the same time in low activity periods

Daggerheart wrote: ↑07 August 2019, 12:39 ** ELO manipulation: I watched a guy advance on the ELO rating list in a game. I studied his matches and found out he mainly had played vs 2-3 opponents. I asked him and he said one of them was his mother and the other one was another relative… he had entered top 30 of the players in that game...

So the guy you are talking about is me, and the game you refer to is LITS.

You may like to view the following 2 tournaments:

https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=25539
https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=23816

Both tournaments have a good share of the top20 players, and even one of those tournaments you were in.

Maybe you'd like to see my recent history of games against grammiej and see how my ELO ranking have varied during recent games:
https://boardgamearena.com/gamestats?pl ... finished=0
- yeah it hasn't moved!

Need I say more?