ARENA SCORES - Could the BGA TEAM consider this?

[dschingis27]

In the same League you aren't more likely to win.

Yes, of course you are if you are one of the best players of the game! Your logic is like saying that Real Madrid is not more likely to win than the rest of their league. In team sports, the league systems work because every team has the same number of games. But if Real Madrid had opponents who can play twice as many games as they play, like it is possible in the BGA Arena, then they wouldn't have a chance on the title anyway.

If BGA Arena had flat scoring, the leaderboards were filled with above average players with the most time left for playing. Totally lame.

[BarboRosso]

In the same League you aren't more likely to win.

Yes, of course you are if you are one of the best players of the game! Your logic is like saying that Real Madrid is not more likely to win than the rest of their league. In team sports, the league systems work because every team has the same number of games. But if Real Madrid had opponents who can play twice as many games as they play, like it is possible in the BGA Arena, then they wouldn't have a chance on the title anyway.

If BGA Arena had flat scoring, the leaderboards were filled with above average players with the most time left for playing. Totally lame.

with this mode, however, there is a risk that those who have the LUCK and not the ability to meet several stronger opponents, will be able to climb the rankings, otherwise statistically if you play often with the lowest ones you are more likely to lose.

I have played against several players in Elite and I only won 6 points, if I had lost even just one game, they would have taken away more than 30 points and it is not correct, especially because whoever is in front tends NOT to play

[BarboRosso]

In the games you play, the players on the top of the leaderboard are those who had a fortunate run of games at some point during the season. You have just as much an opportunity to have a run of games as anyone else. You can't possibly hope to be near the top of the leaderboard every season for such luck based games.

Obviously BGA isn't going to force people to continuously play games. Most people have better things to do with their time, and 3 months is a short enough period for one person to control the leaderboards through their good fortune.

Backgammon, I played with an Elite player, currently we are 7-3, every time I won, I earned 6 points, but it also happens to lose and more than 30 points are taken away from me every time.
This morning I lost with another player (221 elo) who has a much higher ELO than mine (205 elo), in the Arena maybe he is lower, even if in Elite ... I lost the same 21 points .. ..
Can anyone from the BGA team explain to me where the fairness lies?

[sprockitz]

In the games you play, the players on the top of the leaderboard are those who had a fortunate run of games at some point during the season. You have just as much an opportunity to have a run of games as anyone else. You can't possibly hope to be near the top of the leaderboard every season for such luck based games.

Obviously BGA isn't going to force people to continuously play games. Most people have better things to do with their time, and 3 months is a short enough period for one person to control the leaderboards through their good fortune.

Backgammon, I played with an Elite player, currently we are 7-3, every time I won, I earned 6 points, but it also happens to lose and more than 30 points are taken away from me every time.
This morning I lost with another player (221 elo) who has a much higher ELO than mine (205 elo), in the Arena maybe he is lower, even if in Elite ... I lost the same 21 points .. ..
Can anyone from the BGA team explain to me where the fairness lies?

It's fair b/c based on your arena Elo score you should be winning 85% against the player you went 7-3 against, so you underperformed. Against the other player your arena Elo indicates you should win 55% and thus you would've gained 19 with a win but with a loss lost 21. The math is consistent. But like others have said luck based games are all about getting a lucky streak of wins to move to the top of the rankings...whoever gets the longest lucky streak will win the season. (of course skill factors in at the margins since someone who wins 60% is way way more likely to grab 15-20 wins in a row than someone who wins 50%)...but still quite unlikely for both.

[N_Faker]

BGA could alter the ELO calculation to more closely reflect the actual win expectation. They have the data to do it at least.

[BarboRosso]

In the games you play, the players on the top of the leaderboard are those who had a fortunate run of games at some point during the season. You have just as much an opportunity to have a run of games as anyone else. You can't possibly hope to be near the top of the leaderboard every season for such luck based games.

Obviously BGA isn't going to force people to continuously play games. Most people have better things to do with their time, and 3 months is a short enough period for one person to control the leaderboards through their good fortune.

Backgammon, I played with an Elite player, currently we are 7-3, every time I won, I earned 6 points, but it also happens to lose and more than 30 points are taken away from me every time.
This morning I lost with another player (221 elo) who has a much higher ELO than mine (205 elo), in the Arena maybe he is lower, even if in Elite ... I lost the same 21 points .. ..
Can anyone from the BGA team explain to me where the fairness lies?

It's fair b/c based on your arena Elo score you should be winning 85% against the player you went 7-3 against, so you underperformed. Against the other player your arena Elo indicates you should win 55% and thus you would've gained 19 with a win but with a loss lost 21. The math is consistent. But like others have said luck based games are all about getting a lucky streak of wins to move to the top of the rankings...whoever gets the longest lucky streak will win the season. (of course skill factors in at the margins since someone who wins 60% is way way more likely to grab 15-20 wins in a row than someone who wins 50%)...but still quite unlikely for both.

luck based games needs another type of rewards
Different method of calculating scores

[BarboRosso]

#Tisaac ... Also if other ELO is too high the score isn't different
This morning Vs other Elite before I lost 25 points, after I win ONLY 10 points

Again, it works similarly to ELO. You won against someone with 200 less arena points, so you were more likely to win than the player that won against you with only 100 more arena points, thus explaining the difference of rewards

absurd, I was second in Elite, lost with the third and I lost 20 points ... it is unlikely to recover them especially in games where luck has a big weight

[Cheery Dog]

20 points is normal for someone around the same level as you.

[Manassès I]

If you win against a player with exactly the same points in arena it is +20pts
if you loose against a player with exacly the ame points in arena it is -20pts

The winner win exactly that the looser loose
if a player win 30pts, the looser lose 30pts (this is when the winner has less points than the looser)
if a player win 10pts, the losser lose 10pfs ( this is when the winner has more points than the looser)

the maximum is +40pts and miniumum -40pts


Calcul in ELO rank is exactly the same but divided by 2 ( when players have same level in ELO, +10pts for the winner -10pts for the looser)
the system of calcul is the same, but the 2 systems of ranked are totaly idependent

sorry for my english, but it is important to explain for the players who doesn't understood this system

[Schtitn]

I think a fair system will take into account the X better games or / and with a bonus of points regarding performance of opponents you win or lose against.

The current system is maybe fair in a mathematical point of view but very boring.

Example : One month ago i was first of elite in Time masters with maybe 80 points up ore more.
If i had stop playing it was over, there is very few players so they cant reach me with just gaming between them.
I like this game and was confident so i made a test : one game per day.
When i win its 5/10 points and lose 25/30 points.
Today i'm second with 40 points down to the first, 40 points up to the third.
i think the 3 first players are quite equal so i accept, the first was maybe better on few games so its fair.
BUT it happens only because i CHOOSE to continue playing and give them back some oppotunities, with big risks for me.

In an other hand, at Innovation i get lucky and reach 7th one month ago. So i stop. Boring because i like a lot this game. Today i'm 10th and it is a shame because i have no doubt i would be 30th or 40th if i had played 10 or 20 more games during the past month. But i have nothing to be ashamed, i played a lot this season.

My conclusion is simple : first players who reach the top have no reasons to continue playing when defeat is so much punitive. And if they dont, it becomes more and more difficult for others to joint the competition at the top.