Board Game Arena

poichich wrote:

Cappie wrote:

poichich wrote: When you are a beginner, this top is like a goal, a line to achieve but if the line seems to far and the people who are on it absent, they won't play. If they don't play = less players. If less players = less competition and top unreachable. So how can it go worse?

The top is the goal. But wouldnt you rather get there by playing as much games as the ones who have reached the top already? It all seems to be some frustration because there are some people on the top that once have played very good and don't play that often anymore and you want to be above them.
You can. Just play more and win more. If you do that, then you will really get there. It is going to be hard. Like it should be.

The frustration is an non argument to avoid to see the problem. Competition should work like that, that's why it is like this everywhere. Of course i like to challenge stronger players, who doesn't ? and of course i'm frustrated to see players getting top the top while only challenging beginners or not even playing anymore. BUT on game where there are few players if you want to attract more, you need to make the top reachable if you get better not if you play turtle.

As i said before, if you want to show what you did, there is a stats system, there are medals of what you reach that's enough. Rank ELO has to be something that live, force players to compete.

It does force them to play. Just not on the frequency that you would like to see so you can climb the ranks faster. Or rather, have other people go down the rank faster by taking away points so you can be the number one.

poichich wrote:In the entire world competition works like this. Others don't have to follow your rhythm. If your are a tennis player, if you get sick you will miss competition and loose ranking... That is normal.

What is not normal is to say that this is not a competition ranking while it is, to say that this is not important but refuse to decrease it like if it was you bank account and loose few points a day on fast games or fews points a week for long game without playing is a very big deal. To denie the fact that some players avoid playing once they reach the top. When you are a beginner, this top is like a goal, a line to achieve but if the line seems to far and the people who are on it absent, they won't play. If they don't play = less players. If less players = less competition and top unreachable. So how can it go worse?

You seem to fail to accept the fact that people at BGA cannot stop playing when they reach top already. After 60 days of not playing they become unranked, so the entire problem doesn't exist. Also, there is no way a player become seriously weaker by not playing a game for a few days or even a week - this is simply not true.

ATM the way I see the discussion is the following - one player who cannot achieve high ELO (yet?) due to lack of skill and effort is trying to reduce others ELO by changing the system. This is not a good sportsmanship. I'd suggest to focus on increasing skills instead

So to you, 1 speed match every 2 months is enough?
Don't focus on ME. i know it's looks easier for you to reduce the problem to myself, which you seem not able to do when you disagree for your own purpose.
On some game, when you don't play often, you decrease... It's like sports. If you don't play often you don't remember tactics, oves you usually do etc. they will come back with few games. The brain is like a muscle, if you don't train it, you loose skill, that a fact even if you don't like it.

What about the fact that the more player there are, the more the competition gets higher? the hardest it become to go further?

May be i'm on a place where people don't understand what the competition is about, i don't even know a sport or a game where once you arrive at a score you keep it. So ok there are the 2 months thing, but it's unavailable for speed games it should be reduced. the 2 months rule is for the players that don't come on BGA anymore.

And nop i don't want people of the top get down in ranking just for me to go 1 that is your interpretation, it only concern you or what you fear. All i want is to make the top players play or get out, nothing more so how is that a big deal? they don't need the ELO if they don't play. they can keep the medals they earn when they were at their top.
Are you so afraid of that.

I wish there could be more players on some games, but those are not very attractive because they are a bit hard to understand at first, and because even if you are better than the top other players knows that they wont reach the top rank within months just because the top isn't reset and it's been hard to even have a match per day.

Start from applying your own suggestions for others to yourself - play more

Hi all,

This is getting a little heated up, please don't make it so personal

https://boardgamearena.com/#!faq?anchor ... munication

Please remember that everyone is only voicing opinions. There is no absolute right or wrong about a system, it's a collection of choices trying to find the best compromise.

ELO erosion has been discussed before and was decided against as it has its own set of problems.

What we'd like to do at some point is introducing seasonal competitions for players who want to "get to the top" at a given point in time against the players playing during this period of time, while keeping in parallel a stable measure of player strength (ELO) for matchmaking. This is not ready yet (everything takes time), but it is still in our intentions.

6element wrote:Start from applying your own suggestions for others to yourself - play more

Thank you for the advices, and I'm doing this since I arrived here. So now can you be constructive and focus on real answers?

Een wrote:Hi all,

This is getting a little heated up, please don't make it so personal

https://boardgamearena.com/#!faq?anchor ... munication

Please remember that everyone is only voicing opinions. There is no absolute right or wrong about a system, it's a collection of choices trying to find the best compromise.

ELO erosion has been discussed before and was decided against as it has its own set of problems.

What we'd like to do at some point is introducing seasonal competitions for players who want to "get to the top" at a given point in time against the players playing during this period of time, while keeping in parallel a stable measure of player strength (ELO) for matchmaking. This is not ready yet (everything takes time), but it is still in our intentions.

Thank you for the answer, I can be patient. If you can adjust the period of time with the duration of the game that could be great.

poichich wrote: So now can you be constructive and focus on real answers?

I think I'm constructive, or at least somewhat reasonable - as I said I don't see the problem you're trying to solve, it is perfectly Ok to play daily, weekly or monthly. I can see some benefits in reducing 60 days to get unranked to, say, 30, or introducing minimal number of games each ranked player should play each year (say, 25), but that's about it.

The problem with your proposal is that auto-reducing ELO daily (or weekly) punishes folks who play weekly / monthly without any real reason - they are not weaker players, they just play less frequently. As result instead of "forcing people to play more frequently" it'll just force them out. I don't think this is a desired outcome.

I know you don't see the problem I'm trying to explain. Someone who plays a 7min game monthly is not a gamer.

poichich wrote:I know you don't see the problem I'm trying to explain. Someone who plays a 7min game monthly is not a gamer.

So now you're trying to tell us what a gamer is?