Board Game Arena

I’m a bit sad that so many players seem more focus on their ELO than to actually meet good opponents/teammates and enjoy their games

Dr Tumbleshlong wrote: ↑25 April 2023, 03:05 I find it almost impossible to advance in ELO-ranking.

That's exactly the point of Elo. Elo is not there to advance in it. It is there to reflect win probabilities. In luck-focused games, the Elo difference between very good players and average players is supposed to be much smaller than in less luck-focused games. In games where the result strongly depends on luck, the difference in win probabilities between very good players and average players is not that great, hence Elo difference is not that great. Once you reached a high Elo (say >300) in a luck-focused game, you are supposed to not advance further.

Also the "tightness" of a match doesn't matter at all. If you want BGA to implement game-specific performance measures for each game, feel free to fund it with some big money.

Are the K factors on BGA generally too high for luck-based games? Absolutely yes. Your current Elo depends strongly on your recent ~20 game results, which is stupid for games like 6nimmt!. Could there be better measures? Probably yes. Could there be more useful things for matchmaking? Maybe yes.

Actually 6 nimmt is not a good example to prove 'ELO is flawed' argument as some settings are quite strategic (e.g. 5p Tactics variant)
If you can't get out of <300 zone while using those less chaotic rules, then simply your skill is not as good as you think.

dschingis27 wrote: ↑26 April 2023, 21:31 Elo is not there to advance in it. It is there to reflect win probabilities.

Tisaac wrote: ↑26 April 2023, 11:45 I dont get it. You are not talking at all about the opponent average ELO in your analysis where it's the only thing that maters. If you have 1st place against only small ELO, then yeah it makes sense to have such elo adjustments

My opponent averages have been more or less similar than mine. Every now and then a rookie player (ELO around 100 or so) but usually between 220-350 ELO. So yeah, I get what you're saying and it defo would make sense [to barely score points] if I'd be paired against rookie players in their 100's. In general my opponents have more XP in total than I do (XP, yes, not ELO points).

Blacktango wrote: ↑26 April 2023, 18:56 I’m a bit sad that so many players seem more focus on their ELO than to actually meet good opponents/teammates and enjoy their games

If that was a refferral to my original point, then I must add, that I don't mind being at this ELO level. The games are enjoyable. But a ranking system just doesn't make sense where by losing a similar amount of games than winning, you end up losing more points to begin with.

Lets say, if a player wins around 40% of 5-player games, wouldn't it be logical (even if every now and then some of my opponents were slightly lower in ELO ranks) that by that win rate that players' ELO would progress?

ufm wrote: ↑27 April 2023, 13:32 Actually 6 nimmt is not a good example to prove 'ELO is flawed' argument as some settings are quite strategic (e.g. 5p Tactics variant)
If you can't get out of <300 zone while using those less chaotic rules, then simply your skill is not as good as you think.

[sarcasm]Gee-whiz Doc! You're saying it's a strategy game? [/sarcasm]

I find your assumption silly. I personally don't expect nor think my skill level to be even "good" for a game that I have recently started. Like mentioned above in my previous comment, am just wondering, whether an ELO-system where a players' winrate is around 40% (and you place in top2 ~55% of times) is flawed. I do consider that to be every players benefit if at that percentage a player would advance/rank up. It would give a player stronger opponents to play with and to learn from yet it would give other players who aren't doing so well a little easier opponents.

Dr Tumbleshlong wrote: ↑28 April 2023, 01:49Lets say, if a player wins around 40% of 5-player games, wouldn't it be logical (even if every now and then some of my opponents were slightly lower in ELO ranks) that by that win rate that players' ELO would progress?

Let me try to share to you one extreme situation: https://boardgamearena.com/gamestats?pl ... finished=0 (look at the gain/loss of elo in the bottom right, then click on "see more" to see a -19).

I win 90%+ of my games, is it logical that I gain elo? The answer is no, because the difference of elo between me and my opponents are big.
If I was instead gaining elo on that case, then I would be way higher in elo, and the case will just repeat, but just everyone would get inflated elo.

Elo isn't an 'experience bar', it's a way to compare you to others players. If you play 50 or 500 games, there is no difference, players will just have their elo representative to their level.

An example:
- if you have 200 elo and opponent got 200 elo, the winner will gain +10, the loser will lose 10 (if all have played enough games and their k-factor is 20)
- if now you have 300 elo and opponent still have 200 elo, then you are expected to win since you got more elo. If you really win, you shouldn't win +10 but slightly less. Opponent will lose that same amount. If now you lose, it's a surprise and should happen less since you got more elo. So you lose slightly more then 10, and your opponent will win that same amount
- if you have 600 elo and opponent have 200 elo, then if you win you win few, and if you lose you lose a lot

.

So this is the thoery, and it work extremely well for 2 players games (or few interactive games) with few or some random generation.
For games with a lot a random generation, you can still usually reach top 20 very regularly if you are really the best of the game. The elo part will still make you reach your level, but it will be more chaostic: you will be from time to time way more higher your real level (in elo), and way more below it.
For multiplayer games, if there is some interactions between players, others players can consciously or inconsciously target higher elo player which make it harder for high elo player to fight against players which only plays 2p games. So it will 'reduce the highest elo' if you can/if you only play multiplayer.

.

For your experience, I will quote again my last post:

Romain672 wrote: ↑26 April 2023, 14:58 You could have alternative system on high luck games, per example by making the difference of level matter less.
But to reach high elo you would need more games to play, and it makes one extra step to explain elo to someone which isn't familiar with it. That's two downsides already.

And I will agree that the elo system isn't great for me for high luck games. But it's complicated to change it, and have downsides.
But it doesn't mean elo is meaningless. Often, when I see on those games a weird good play, it's usually from players with higher elo than others. Just since their elo is further than their real level, it's harder to keep elo.

Dr Tumbleshlong wrote: ↑28 April 2023, 02:08

ufm wrote: ↑27 April 2023, 13:32 Actually 6 nimmt is not a good example to prove 'ELO is flawed' argument as some settings are quite strategic (e.g. 5p Tactics variant)
If you can't get out of <300 zone while using those less chaotic rules, then simply your skill is not as good as you think.

[sarcasm]Gee-whiz Doc! You're saying it's a strategy game? [/sarcasm]

Obviously you don't know what Tactics variant is... (facepalm)

I don't mind the ELO system for normal mode games... except, I didn't know that the system awards NONE (zero ELO) to a high rated player when he/she wins against a beginner.

I just played a fun game with a beginner. We both had fun, until I noticed, at the end, ZERO ELO gain for me.

It's painful enough to get +1 ELO, but at least 1 ELO is still ONE.

BGA, please consider having the MINIMUM ELO added, being at least +1.

Thank you!

Uncle Rick wrote: ↑16 May 2024, 06:00 I don't mind the ELO system for normal mode games... except, I didn't know that the system awards NONE (zero ELO) to a high rated player when he/she wins against a beginner.

I just played a fun game with a beginner. We both had fun, until I noticed, at the end, ZERO ELO gain for me.

It's painful enough to get +1 ELO, but at least 1 ELO is still ONE.

BGA, please consider having the MINIMUM ELO added, being at least +1.

Thank you!

Definitely not. I can understand using hosting restrictions to avoid ever being paired against someone where you'd get less than 1 point, but trying to take advantage of those players isn't the answer. Beating up a bunch of beginners trying to learn the rules for free rating isn't really the spirit of elo, it's just taking advantage of the weakness of elo prediction in extreme elo gap cases.