Board Game Arena

Agentus wrote: ↑28 February 2024, 22:37 I do not really get the issue here. The fact that ELO allows one to be competitive even after a bad start into a season is a feature not a bug in my opinion. A rating based on win percentage would make the competition absolutely static after a good portion of the season is over with only those that haven't played much yet being able to make a run. This would also encourage players to run multiple accounts and definitely not encourage people to play more if a season is decided early by a good early run.
Also win percentage would encourage to select opponents and not play the best players. Even somehow correcting for ELO could not really help, additionally that would mean BGA would have to somehow invent a formula for this which is somehow deemed fair by everyone. A nigh impossible task - for this things like ELO, Trueskill etc. were invented by very smart people, getting a new system right is a gigantic task and not simple 'action taking'. I would really prefer them working on actual problems of the site.

Thanks for your counterview!
I see the appeal of being able to make a comeback at any point, but that is on expense of a more fair outcome. On long tournaments, static tends to promote fairness while volatility tends to promote randomness. Sometimes, the Premier Leagues champ is crowned with weeks to spare, not the most exciting thing, but better than allowing a comeback from a team that was many points back just because they won the last few games.

If we start trying and testing new systems, with some time, we will be able to find the system that best suits our community. For me personally, it is a major issue right now. I'm losing the appeal to keep playing Arena. I just hate when I get a bad streak and that "deletes" all my previous games, it makes me feel that all time spent was a waste. I don't aim to win Arena season just to find a fair measure to track my season and be able to progress based on that metric.

h_illes wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 06:04 I think a smaller K factor in ELO would somewhat mitigate some of these problems. A single loss to a lower rated player would not hurt that much, and win streaks would also be less prevalent.

Not sure that would solve big issues. Everything would escalate quite similar, so you lose fewer but you would also win fewer. So the ratio wins to compensate a loss will be the same (which I think is the factor that incentivizes no play).

maveleo wrote: ↑28 February 2024, 22:06 In essence most of the players are in agreement but still no action is taken. Maybe using forums is not the right approach as only moderators are reading them so no one that count really something on the platform development side.

Thanks for your support. I wanted to start a thread to see the response of it. I have seen some players in favour and some against. I will keep it for some days, and then I maybe raise the concern through other channels to see if anything can be done.

1000esqrtn1 wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 08:26

h_illes wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 06:04 I think a smaller K factor in ELO would somewhat mitigate some of these problems. A single loss to a lower rated player would not hurt that much, and win streaks would also be less prevalent.

Not sure that would solve big issues. Everything would escalate quite similar, so you lose fewer but you would also win fewer. So the ratio wins to compensate a loss will be the same (which I think is the factor that incentivizes no play).

I didn't say it would fully solve the issues, I intentionally used the word 'mitigate'. But I am fairly sure it would help. A lower K factor would mean smaller short-term variance. With a low K factor, if player A is better than player B, player B is less likely to get to a higher rating than player A due to a lucky win streak than for a higher K factor. Of course, if their skill levels are very close, then win streaks will still matter, but in such a situation, it is hard to tell which player is better using any rating system anyway.

Consider E.g. for FIDE chess ratings, where the K factor is lower for higher rated players. I don't see any high level chess players stop playing to preserve their rank.

h_illes wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 06:04 I think a smaller K factor in ELO would somewhat mitigate some of these problems. A single loss to a lower rated player would not hurt that much, and win streaks would also be less prevalent.

Yup. It isn’t even the elo system which is the biggest problem but the increased k factor in arena. In the op example the losing player still drops a significant amount but the rise is decreased and vice versa. It is designed this way on purpose to keep people playing.

h_illes wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 10:18

1000esqrtn1 wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 08:26

h_illes wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 06:04 I think a smaller K factor in ELO would somewhat mitigate some of these problems. A single loss to a lower rated player would not hurt that much, and win streaks would also be less prevalent.

Not sure that would solve big issues. Everything would escalate quite similar, so you lose fewer but you would also win fewer. So the ratio wins to compensate a loss will be the same (which I think is the factor that incentivizes no play).

I didn't say it would fully solve the issues, I intentionally used the word 'mitigate'. But I am fairly sure it would help. A lower K factor would mean smaller short-term variance. With a low K factor, if player A is better than player B, player B is less likely to get to a higher rating than player A due to a lucky win streak than for a higher K factor. Of course, if their skill levels are very close, then win streaks will still matter, but in such a situation, it is hard to tell which player is better using any rating system anyway.

Consider E.g. for FIDE chess ratings, where the K factor is lower for higher rated players. I don't see any high level chess players stop playing to preserve their rank.

You are right there. I misjudged the global effect it would produce. In fact a very low K would difficult to open huge gaps between players, meaning that ELO system would never have a heavy favourite, so all games would be worth quite similar, resembling then to a winning percentage system. The overall standings would look pretty compact, but that few points difference between players may be translated to many wins.

That may be our way to go for the moment. It is an easy fix, that would feel as a considerable improvement for detractors of the current system like me, while at the same time being the same method for people who is already happy with it.

1000esqrtn1 wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 10:45 In fact a very low K would difficult to open huge gaps between players, meaning that ELO system would never have a heavy favourite, so all games would be worth quite similar, resembling then to a winning percentage system. The overall standings would look pretty compact, but that few points difference between players may be translated to many wins.

That may be our way to go for the moment. It is an easy fix, that would feel as a considerable improvement for detractors of the current system like me, while at the same time being the same method for people who is already happy with it.

Incidentally, a decreased K factor was one of the suggestions in the other topic about ELO, see e.g. here:
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 5&start=40

A (bad) solution would be per example to force everyone to play (for short games) 50 games of it during the season.
After you reach 50 games, you can't start a new arena game, and if you play less, you get a big downside.


Chess has way less luck that most board game here. And it's 2 players. And it has enough players. So it's hard to compare.
If you compare it to League of Legend which since it's 5v5 should be a hell to find the right k-factor, players seem to have invented extra things about what the algorythm do just because the rng part between games is enormous. For top elo players, I don't know what happen, I think games tend to be way closer which make the rng part less present, but at least the winner of the season isn't much put in front compared to bga.

I will be very surprised if anything will change at all.
Hope to be wrong here but the system is so clearly unbalanced, if nothing was done so far then maybe issue is not in the development of the system but in their developers

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 10:38

h_illes wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 06:04 I think a smaller K factor in ELO would somewhat mitigate some of these problems. A single loss to a lower rated player would not hurt that much, and win streaks would also be less prevalent.

Yup. It isn’t even the elo system which is the biggest problem but the increased k factor in arena. In the op example the losing player still drops a significant amount but the rise is decreased and vice versa. It is designed this way on purpose to keep people playing.

maveleo wrote: ↑01 March 2024, 21:44 I will be very surprised if anything will change at all.
Hope to be wrong here but the system is so clearly unbalanced, if nothing was done so far then maybe issue is not in the development of the system but in their developers

Yeah, maybe you are right that they just want it that way. It seems a bit dirty to make a ranking system too swingy so everybody can feel they can win at any moment and force them to keep playing. As said, for me it produces a counter effect of not wanting to play more Arena. I hope they can change it, at least reduce the k factor.

1000esqrtn1 wrote: ↑05 March 2024, 09:35

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 10:38

h_illes wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 06:04 I think a smaller K factor in ELO would somewhat mitigate some of these problems. A single loss to a lower rated player would not hurt that much, and win streaks would also be less prevalent.

Yup. It isn’t even the elo system which is the biggest problem but the increased k factor in arena. In the op example the losing player still drops a significant amount but the rise is decreased and vice versa. It is designed this way on purpose to keep people playing.

maveleo wrote: ↑01 March 2024, 21:44 I will be very surprised if anything will change at all.
Hope to be wrong here but the system is so clearly unbalanced, if nothing was done so far then maybe issue is not in the development of the system but in their developers

Yeah, maybe you are right that they just want it that way. It seems a bit dirty to make a ranking system too swingy so everybody can feel they can win at any moment and force them to keep playing. As said, for me it produces a counter effect of not wanting to play more Arena. I hope they can change it, at least reduce the k factor.

I agree, intentional or not it looks really bad and doesn't look good to the reputation of whoever is on top of these decisions or not decisions.
In essence I am happy for a board game to be randomised a little but the scoring system should not be random as well. Meantime my membership renewal is gone ...

1000esqrtn1 wrote: ↑05 March 2024, 09:35

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 10:38

h_illes wrote: ↑29 February 2024, 06:04 I think a smaller K factor in ELO would somewhat mitigate some of these problems. A single loss to a lower rated player would not hurt that much, and win streaks would also be less prevalent.

Yup. It isn’t even the elo system which is the biggest problem but the increased k factor in arena. In the op example the losing player still drops a significant amount but the rise is decreased and vice versa. It is designed this way on purpose to keep people playing.

maveleo wrote: ↑01 March 2024, 21:44 I will be very surprised if anything will change at all.
Hope to be wrong here but the system is so clearly unbalanced, if nothing was done so far then maybe issue is not in the development of the system but in their developers

Yeah, maybe you are right that they just want it that way. It seems a bit dirty to make a ranking system too swingy so everybody can feel they can win at any moment and force them to keep playing. As said, for me it produces a counter effect of not wanting to play more Arena. I hope they can change it, at least reduce the k factor.

To me and you it may seem a bit dirty but to someone like agentus it isn't. At least you are aware of what's going on. Some popular games have as much as 30% of total games being played in arena. So even though a more fair system would be the right way to go if bga wanted arena to resemble a serious competition that isn't going to happen. Changing it would result in less games/traffic to the site.