BETA: Arena mode (Season 0 - BETA)

[turtler7]

There should be some pre-classification into leagues based on ELO at the beginning of the season. That way the leagues would be already populated with appropriate players from the start.

That should shake itself out after the first season is over. Since the relegation at the end of a season is likely a one tier drop to make back up in the next quarter players should come stratified fairly well. I wouldn't be opposed to initial seeding either but have definitely played people whose ELO doesn't in any way reflect their skill in both directions.

[xxerox]

Add more ranks tbh.

[dschingis27]

There should be some pre-classification into leagues based on ELO at the beginning of the season. That way the leagues would be already populated with appropriate players from the start.

That should shake itself out after the first season is over.

Yes, the problem will be less in the next season. However if you abandoned a game for like 6 months and want to start again or haven't yet played Arena, you still have the huge entry barrier. Admittedly it is more a problem for long strategic games where games can get boring fast in David-vs-Goliath games amd the time to invest is large. I know some players don't mind to play against unequal skill but I somehow assume that many of the competetive players do mind.

[Chamnix318]

I'm not really sure the problem Arena mode is trying to solve is a real problem. So some people get to a #1 ranking and play infrequently after that. Who is upset by this? The #2 - #10 players who think they should be #1? Does anyone else care?

To me, Arena mode just seems like a way for active players to pile up prestige. That's fine as far as it goes, but as you say in the FAQ: "ELO ranking is the best and most accurate way to check the level of your opponent."

I also don't think the top players will necessarily compete hard every quarter making the "world champion" designation kind of meaningless sometimes. I will just look at Arena mode similar to other tournaments - a way to get extra prestige, but still not as meaningful as ELO in the long run.

With that said, and given that Arena mode will happen in some form, what would make it more appealing to me? First, I will only play games that have a format that appeals to me. There are a lot of games I will not play two player, for example. My preference would be that any game with any number of players and any variant would count for Arena mode. I understand the arguments against that, but I think the extra inclusiveness outweighs the arguments against.

Second, as primarily a turn-based player who plays a lot of different games, I think a quarter is generally too short a time period for a season. How many games are you anticipating a person would have to play in order to climb through the rankings and have a meaningful EAS? When a game takes several weeks, it is difficult to fit too many into a quarter.

I don't know if my opinions are completely out of step with most players, but I thought I'd express them. Basically, I don't think my style of play will change at all once Arena mode is active. It would be nice if the games I play would count toward Arena mode, and I will play Arena mode if I can without making dramatic changes to what I do currently, but if I can't then I can't.

[ringersoll]

At BoardSpace.net they have a 'Ladder' ranking system (in addition to the ELO). Here is the description of how it works:
---------------------
About the Ranking Ladder

The ranking ladder is a parallel rating system based on the idea that better players win in games against worse players, so there's a natural hierarchy with the best players at the top. Boardspace implementation of this simple idea is designed to encourage players to actually play, and to prevent players who achieve a high ranking from avoiding playing to protect their standing. Here's how it works.

* The ladder is based on powers of 2, with one player on level 1, 2 players on level 2, 4 players on level 3 and so on. Your level is intended to represent, roughly, your skill level.
* On any given level, the first player is whoever played most recently, and so on to the last player is the player to played least recently.
* When a human player plays a ranked game, he is moved to the first position on his current level. Robot players are not moved.
* If the winner was on a lower or the same level, the winner moves up one level. If the higher level is full, the last player on the level is demoted one level. There's one exception to this; you can't advance twice in a row by defeating the same opponent.

Under this system, as long as you keep playing you will remain at your current level or move up. The only way you can move down is to not play. Players who do not sleep have an advantage!
------------------------
In this system, a player never drops for losing, only for not playing. While players who win can climb up the ladder. Much better IMHO.

[Pistolero]

Chamnix318 what you say is sound

[RealLife_]

In this system, a player never drops for losing, only for not playing. While players who win can climb up the ladder. Much better IMHO.

This is terrible because it just rewards players for putting in volume. It's the same issue we currently have in the ELO system where some top players will just spam games against beginners that have close to 0 chance of winning, resulting in a lot of +1's all the way to the top.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with rank #1 being inactive, it's up to #2 and lower to overtake this player and force him to be active again if he wants the crown. If he wants to keep playing to try & extend his lead, he has the option to do so. If not, I don't see the problem at all honestly.

[Incentive]

In this system, a player never drops for losing, only for not playing. While players who win can climb up the ladder. Much better IMHO.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with rank #1 being inactive, it's up to #2 and lower to overtake this player and force him to be active again if he wants the crown. If he wants to keep playing to try & extend his lead, he has the option to do so. If not, I don't see the problem at all honestly.

It's not that simple. Take for example RftG. There are a handful of inactive players with 800+ ELO that will occasionally play a game and take the top couple of spots. There is nothing that any other players can do about this - the best active players (typically 600-650 ELO) can play until they are blue in the face and not get to 800+ ELO.

[dschingis27]

I find the system described by ringersoll awful. Because it exploits loss aversion to motivate you to play. You would play to not loose a rank, not so much to test your skill. One thing I really liked about the current Arena mode was that you could not get relegated down to a lower league. This way we always have a nice low-risk/high-reward situation to play in Arena. You can't loose too much but there is always something to achieve. I think such a positive approach fits very good to BGA.

[Tatasmurf]

I for one quite liked the arena, only played Hive games but it seemed to bring more people to the game.

Players that knew the game but were no longer playing Hive regularly started playing again motivated by the new ranking.

That said one thing to improve is the split it creates in the player lobby and in my opinion there should be two different seasonal "ladders" one for real time play and one for turn based games as they are vastly different in nature at least for hive.