Board Game Arena

Totally support the arena point decaying system. Many top 10 guys have stopped playing after making a decent run in early-mid season. But newer players have actually become stronger by mid season and the streak runs are much harder.

Also, please implement a cycle of 2 player then 3 player then 4 player each season as Splendor is a 2-4 person's game!

Peak score would mean you could accumulate wins in turn-based games to get a high one-time score by artificially winning many games, while not finishing the ones one may be losing... Kind of like the issue BGA thankfully dealt with at the end of the seasons.

evereverever wrote: ↑08 June 2022, 10:56 Peak score would mean you could accumulate wins in turn-based games to get a high one-time score by artificially winning many games, while not finishing the ones one may be losing... Kind of like the issue BGA thankfully dealt with at the end of the seasons.

No you can't. Ever seen the message 'You must play this game first'?

Peak score sounds like the best alternative (if any).

Every player has a EAS, just hidden until they reach elite. Will the starting value of 1500 start dropping if I don't play any games in arena for the first 5 days of the season?

I'd also like more information for when the period starts/ends for turn based.
I play some unpopular games and have been waiting for a table for some of them for over 5 days this previous season. Would my EAS be dropping while trying to launch a new game?

I'm with others here, I think this is a very bad plan and would be very against it being implemented. (I do thank you for making a poll and soliciting feedback here though! That's a great step to staying in tune with your community and player base).

Others have done well to explain why I think a decay isn't good, but to reiterate/highlight their points:

--I don't think you can fairly implement a decay between real time and turn based games, because turn based games have way more leeway with how long turns can be, players will be incentivized to sometimes change up their play speed in order to ensure they have a game completing every X days to avoid rating decay, while real time players have no such manipulation beyond just playing again, so rating decay affects the two groups in pretty disparate ways, further causing issues with comparing ratings of the two groups for arena standings.

--I don't think decay is even fair. While it may be annoying for someone to get a very high rating early in the season and just park on it, why is that player penalized over one who does the exact same thing but just late in the season? It makes no actual sense from a competitive perspective.

--Finally, while I'm not sure I'm in favor of it either, the proposal to use peak arena rating rather than current is also another avenue to solving this issue, but that proposal has far fewer problems in both specifics of implementation and in how players could try to "abuse" the system to avoid it. Rating decay is almost certainly too tricky to set up everything such that you're not just creating a slew more issues in how players try to get around it.

My question to the developers would be - what does the past data show you? How much do people stop playing and at what level in the standings does that become a problem?

I also agree with some other comments that 5 days seems to soon to impose a penalty as work, school, holidays may be contributing factors for some people. Maybe 1 week at least?

In terms of penalties - I'm not sure 1 pt per day has much impact. Currently on Can't stop, 1st place has 1840 pts, 2nd has 1773, and 10th has 1733. Maybe past seasons have typically been closer in standings for top 10, but 1 pt per day has very little impact on 1st here compared to the risk of playing and losing. Maybe more points per day? And/or maybe decay penalties doesn't apply until final 20-30 days of season?

evereverever wrote: ↑07 June 2022, 16:47 Agreed that secondary accounts are a bigger/more annoying issue. Could easily attempt to tackle those checking the IP addresses (though obviously people who live together and also VPN is possible, so not obvious).

I am talking about cases such as (and this following now is just a fictional example): Mike1, Mike2, Mike3, ..., Mike8, 8 usernames all with the IP in Sri Lanka, that occupy 8 distinct places in top 20, in a certain game, in a certain Arena Season.

If nothing is done about such cases (which are not few at all), I think it's fair to have a decreased hope or expectation in the justice system.

This above, is what I consider a true form of "parking"; not the fact that someone (with 1 competitive account) risks his/her momentary place in an Arena top 20, by prematurely abandoning the game in that season, for various reasons.

This is the most no-brainer, obvious thing to implement. Many of the games have the same people in the Top 10 every season. They play a ton of Arena and get a high score early, then they park for the rest of the season. If you look at their activity in their profile, none of them stop playing that particular game on BGA. They just switch to playing tons of unranked games daily.

As for the people who say its not fair to penalize people who stop playing because "other life things get in the way." Why not? If something else gets in the way of being able to play a 7 minute game a couple times a week to pass the time on your phone, then what would you care about being penalized for anyways?

Keep the competitive spirit alive and penalize the people who are too scared to keep playing once they hit Top 10.

KongKing123 wrote: ↑07 June 2022, 15:03 A hard no on this. BGA is not a profession or a chore, people don't need to be penalised for not constantly playing.

This. Why would anyone on here honestly want this? It's bad.

DoctorPecker wrote: ↑09 June 2022, 01:57 This is the most no-brainer, obvious thing to implement.

Sayoria wrote: ↑09 June 2022, 06:00 Why would anyone on here honestly want this? It's bad.

Funny to have this in two posts right after each other.