Page 2 of 2
Re: Minus 1 for the first place
Posted: 09 July 2019, 17:10
by Silene
btw - ELO is not a price. Don't think of it as "price money for winning the game".
It's a measure of skill which gets increased when you perform above expectation and gets reduced when you perform below expectation. Tie-ing with a player who has lower ELO than you is below expectation, sorry.
Maybe it becomes more clear if you think of it as a 2-player game. Both player tie = both player win. So if it was a tournament and there was a price, this price should be shared. For ELO on the other hand it means both players played on the same level - so ELO should get adapted for both players towards a value that's in the middle. It means stronger player's ELO reduces and weaker player's ELO increases. It's how it should be.
Re: Minus 1 for the first place
Posted: 10 July 2019, 01:42
by 6element
You don't get it. The first place is winning per game rules and per definition. This was the case where there were two winners and one loser.
Re: Minus 1 for the first place
Posted: 10 July 2019, 01:48
by 6element
Silene wrote: ↑09 July 2019, 17:10
btw - ELO is not a price. Don't think of it as "price money for winning the game".
On BGA ELO is used as reward for winning the game. It could've been win rate, average score, or something else, but at the moment it is ELO (the way they calculate it).
Reward for winning can be very low, but it shouldn't negative.
Re: Minus 1 for the first place
Posted: 10 July 2019, 02:01
by 6element
eoc wrote: ↑09 July 2019, 12:08
6element wrote: ↑08 July 2019, 23:59
I'm just saying - winning is winning, and clearly 1st place is winning. In this game there have been two winners and one loser.
I understand where you're coming from, and in many offline groups that would indeed be the interpretation of what happened
Perhaps it helps to think about it this way:
Your "co-winner" performed better than expected, since they managed to tie with a player whose Elo rank was higher going into the game. That means their Elo rank should increase since they played better than expected (probability-wise)! And if there's Elo gain on the one side, it must come at the expense of another player – the "better" one, who was expected to put enough score difference between the two (again, expected w/r/t probability).
(And yeah, as mentioned earlier, the notion of winners vs losers only applies to team games such as
Not Alone. Instead of placement results, BGA as of recently does indeed show "Winner" / "Loser" since they're well-defined for these games.)
I totally agree that ELO gained by winners should be weighted based on their ELO. Also good point that definition of a winner and a loser is game-specific - in case of a draw in chess none of the player is winner, in case of 7 Wonders all players placed first are winners, but is it true, that only last player is loser? It is debatable. I tend to think that in 7 Wonders a player who didn't win is a loser, but there can be arguments made either way.
Anyway, everybody - thanks for discussion, cu, hf and gl
Re: Minus 1 for the first place
Posted: 10 July 2019, 09:57
by RicardoRix
6element wrote: ↑10 July 2019, 01:42
You don't get it. The first place is winning per game rules and per definition. This was the case where there were two winners and one loser.
While you like the title 'winner' and think that should mean something, you didn't actually beat the guy you drew with.
ELO is an overlay calculation done by BGA and is not covered in any game rules booklet.
ELO is calculated as a series of 1v1 games with all the combinations of players.
You drew with him and therefore lost ELO to him because his ELO was lower than yours when you drew.
Re: Minus 1 for the first place
Posted: 10 July 2019, 10:09
by Silene
6element wrote: ↑10 July 2019, 01:48
Silene wrote: ↑09 July 2019, 17:10
btw - ELO is not a price. Don't think of it as "price money for winning the game".
On BGA ELO is used as reward for winning the game. [...]
I think of it the other way around. The result of a game is used to adapt ELO-scores. There is no special "reward" for winning a game (why do you need one?). Only the points you get in case it's a tournament game. The reward is the result itself. You win - you can be happy. Don't play for the numbers!