Board Game Arena

sourisdudesert wrote:

agentlik wrote:5 points is too much when difference in rating is so big, isn't it?

Well, there is no "so big" or "so small". Many players was complaining about the high K factor on BGA compared to - for example - the one used for Chess (see here for example). The K factor is still pretty high on BGA, but now it is no more excessively high

It means that players who got high rating before today, will be higher longer and other player should play more and win in two times more games than earlier to achieve players on the top.

If earlier player1 won 10 games of 10, new player must win 20 games of 20 to achieve same result (take that all opponents are the same).

agentlik wrote: It means that players who got high rating before today, will be higher longer and other player should play more and win in two times more games than earlier to achieve players on the top.

True.
But please note that at the same time we introduced a minimum ELO, which cause a slighly inflation to all ELOs. So it may be more difficult to reach highest ELO... or maybe not

sourisdudesert wrote:

asd123321 wrote:There is plenty of room to display the wins and games played in the box

The issue is not available space but clarity, as explained above

Displaying that info doen't confuse anything. It's good info for players. So make it visible please.

I disagree that not having the number of games played already on the screen provides clarity. Why is that the number of games played would make somebody unable to read the ratings graph? I think you should give your players more intellectual credit than that.

I like to quickly be able to see how many games I've played and what percentage I win. My personal goal is to get that number higher. I like to just see it as soon as I start a table. Showing them may please people but I can't imagine it would negatively affect anyone.

please get rid of elo.make wins losses the priorty.let the players decide whoM is gooD player by real stats.please stop wasting ur time trying to make some happy with ELO.ITS mEANING LESS ITS A FRAME OF TIME NOT REAL WINS OR LOSS STATUS.

Even better, put the win percent so I don't have to calculate it

The new ELO system is very good.

Hello
I keep writing that we need to know the number of finished games, instead of total played.
It will more useful to know sore loser.
my2p

[quote="sourisdudesert"]
But on the other hand, ELO is a really bad system from a game design perspective. Telling a beginner after his/her first game that he/she has a worst level (1470) than initially (1500) is really discouraging.

By introducing the minimum, we have the best of the two worlds : a system that rewards efforts for new players, and then a system that rewards skills for regular players.[/quote]

This could be also fulfilled by introducing a rule that any changes in Elo may occur not before some number of games have been finished (let's say, 25 or 30). A player will either improve during this number of games, switch to another game, or, if he / she's dedicated to the title, will be playing it no matter whether his / her Elo drops or not.

By the way, thanks for reducing the K-factor, it was horribly high.

I agree that the number "played / won" (or, even better, "finished / won") should be shown more directly, as it used to be. In connection with accurate Elo rating it tells almost all about a player anyone may need to know. Percentage alone tells you next to nothing, as having played and won exactly one game makes your winrate 100%, which is ridiculous.

How about if your old ELO is below 1300?

[quote="333-blue"]How about if your old ELO is below 1300?[/quote]

It means I have a lot of room for improvement.

How does this question go with accurate measuring of a player's strength? Continuing in this logic, we may give to a beginner a 2k rating just to keep him happy.