Board Game Arena

I undertand your ideas, but for me, it is not good at all

You say that players rise their elo and after stop playing more than 1 day to protect their elo. Yes, that's true ! But really, can we say they are bad? Not at all ! Those players played and won elo points as everybody !
Moreover, you spoke about the obligation to do 15 games in 60 days to be on the classment?? What??? 15? What about players who play a lot of games? BGA is a really good website but players have to do something else and are allowed to save time to play new games

KaosBombix wrote:I undertand your ideas, but for me, it is not good at all

You say that players rise their elo and after stop playing more than 1 day to protect their elo. Yes, that's true ! But really, can we say they are bad? Not at all ! Those players played and won elo points as everybody !

The complaint is about people who get a high ELO, and then stop playing RATED games except for once every 60 days. It is not that they are not playing the game because of time constraints or whatever, but that they are only playing UNRATED games, in order to protect their high ELO. Moreover, the real problem is with games which have some element of chance, so that a player who happens to get lucky a few times in a row may get an undeservedly high rating and then refuse to play any more rated games, while losing unrated games right and left.

Somewhere in the forums there is a discussion of how in a game with some chance involved, in expectation you lose ELO by playing lower rated players. Read it. It is pretty instructive, and you will then see why the OP (and many others) are upset about the status quo.

I agree too.

From my point of view there are 2 problems today:
- new ELO calculation makes much more difficult getting to a high ELO (i don't see how you could be 1000 ELO at a 2 player games without spending hundreds of games)
- And the players high ranked who do not play with elo on, like in Tokaido for instance.

my solution is maybe violent, but would tend to be the fairest
1. reset all ELO so the first point is solved.
2. back to ELO downgrade in case of not playing certain amount of ranked games by month
3. some ELO downgrade if you only play with beginners or apprentices for example.

reseting the ELO will upset lots of players. but i think it is a necessary condition to a fair ELO ranking
THen it is matter to adjust the ELO downgrades and the formula taking into account the type of game (length, #players, luck etc...)

I guess limiting number of games played within a certain time may not be good, as some players may not have time or are retired temporarily

and for the problem of playing no elo games, players can actually start another account to play games if they get a satisfied rank, it sounds that it does not violate the rules on bga

some players who play against beginners very very often say that they want to teach beginners. is this appropriate. but some of them ran away quickly when a non-beginner enters their table. is this their right to choose opponents or...?

though I personally agree with the above maximum elo idea

Perhaps give more prestige to game who are popular (in function of the number of game played per month) will resolve the problem of player who play no popular game to get trophies. (at least for ranking trophies)

After, this solution give more credit to fast game... I don't know how ameliorate that idea.

Romain672 wrote:Perhaps give more prestige to game who are popular (in function of the number of game played per month) will resolve the problem of player who play no popular game to get trophies. (at least for ranking trophies)

After, this solution give more credit to fast game... I don't know how ameliorate that idea.

but shoudln't every game be treated fairly? I am afraid that this will make unpopular games to be more unpopular.. in fact some/most of them are actually quite interesting

Or adjust it between 25k and 100k for each game (for first place who got value of 50k actually).

I don't think it is players who play for trophies who make a game popular or not.

KaosBombix wrote:I undertand your ideas, but for me, it is not good at all

You say that players rise their elo and after stop playing more than 1 day to protect their elo. Yes, that's true ! But really, can we say they are bad? Not at all ! Those players played and won elo points as everybody !
Moreover, you spoke about the obligation to do 15 games in 60 days to be on the classment?? What??? 15? What about players who play a lot of games? BGA is a really good website but players have to do something else and are allowed to save time to play new games

I don't say the top players are bad, because if they are bad, they can't climb to the top like that But the main problem is, to keep trophy, some of them decide to play with players with very low elo, the probability of winning there is too high, so no reason for them to lose. They can win against everybody, but if they don't choose that way (instead go battling with average and below players), they don't deserve to be the best.

The number of games requires to play in each 60 days can be changed appropriately, but should be 10-15 per 60 days. I think 1 game per 4-6 days is enough, and even if you have the rank in 10 games, even 20, you can play 4 match per day to keep all trophies besides you.

First of all, the main problem here is that awarding "trophies" to the highest rated players is not necessarily the same as giving them to the best players. If we look at real world sports and games there are a few using ELO-based systems, and I don't think any of them hands out awards to whoever happens to be highest rated. You play world championships, and whoever wins that gets the trophy. So, if we want to decide who is the champion in a particular game here, hold a tournament and whoever wins is the champion.

Also, the problems described is more common if the rankings are deflationary, that is most people losing points in the long run, likely due to new players entering low but with a good skill from playing IRL. The new system adds some inflation (due to the hard floor at 100), but it will take some time before these effects will become notable in the higher ranks.

Ahla wrote:First of all, the main problem here is that awarding "trophies" to the highest rated players is not necessarily the same as giving them to the best players.

+100

Also this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/winning-arguments