Board Game Arena

Ceaseless wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 15:14

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 11:59

alexwjb wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 11:02


But this argument works the other way as well. If I'm a lower elo player in a losing position, I'm incentivised to boot in order to "tie" the higher elo player.

Ultimately the principle should be: you should never be hurt if someone else quits the game. The suggestion that the only elo calculations are made between the players remaining in the game and the quitter is the best imo.

The solution above is better than what we have now but it isn’t a fix. If I’m an expert and some average player quits this means I still only get 1.something elo. Are either of these possible solutions?

Yes, higher rated players should still be getting their standard minimal gains for a lower rated player's loss. The one adjustment I do think should go in their favor is removing the nonsensical percentage ratings BGA has. The quitter lost, full points should be awarded accordingly.

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 11:59 There are a few options. One is that all non quitters tie and split elo from the losing player equally. Also note in this situation that the quitter is losing 10 elo for the karma hit that goes nowhere. Instead those points can go to the players. So in a 4p game each player is already guaranteed 3.33 elo in addition to there equal share of whatever elo is split evenly. To be clear if a player has increased k factor they should still get their equivalent.

Definitely do not want that. You should get what you get for beating the player naturally, no more and no less. So those with more rating get fewer points and those with less rating get more points relative to each other. The rating the quitter lost for the karma deduction is also just a net loss, that's a penalty for them, not rating to be transferred to other players.

Technically on average the highest rated player would still get less and the lower rated players would still get more than if the game finished. It is more even like this. This way everyone still "wins" instead of someone (the highest rated player) getting the short end of the stick. As of now when this happens you will have high rated players getting 0 or under 1 while a low elo player will get double digit elo for a game they were most likely losing. That is why they are the lower elo player to begin with. So with this solution all non quitters would get an equal amount. The higher rated player still wouldn't get what they would for winning if the game finished. That seems fair to me and I don't see a need for the quitters elo to be a net loss. By them quitting they lose to all the other players so since elo is taken from them anyway why can't it just go to the victors of the game? I looked at razorOz history. They have a ridiculous amount of games which were cancelled out due to this and it isn't fair to them that they get 0 pts for all of those games. Them getting a +1.14 elo from just the quitter after a 4p hour long game isn't a solution either.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 15:14

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 11:59 There are a few options. One is that all non quitters tie and split elo from the losing player equally. Also note in this situation that the quitter is losing 10 elo for the karma hit that goes nowhere. Instead those points can go to the players. So in a 4p game each player is already guaranteed 3.33 elo in addition to there equal share of whatever elo is split evenly. To be clear if a player has increased k factor they should still get their equivalent.

Definitely do not want that. You should get what you get for beating the player naturally, no more and no less. So those with more rating get fewer points and those with less rating get more points relative to each other. The rating the quitter lost for the karma deduction is also just a net loss, that's a penalty for them, not rating to be transferred to other players.

There is no additional -10 Elo loss for quitting. This idea probably stems from the misleading/bad text placement on the game results page. The "-10" label refers to karma, even though yes, it really looks like it's talking about Elo. See https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=483253833 for example, and hover on the Elo calculation on the quit player. They lost Elo for losing against every other player, they did not lose 10 extra.

By the way, can players really lose Elo from another quitting? In that game, RazorOz was prevented on getting negative Elo, hover over RazorOz's calculation and you'll see, "You cannot lose Elo when a player quits a game". Otherwise they would have got around -2. So maybe that part has been fixed (again?), or it is a bug that appears inconsistently.

ErikLevin wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 16:51

Ceaseless wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 15:14

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 11:59 There are a few options. One is that all non quitters tie and split elo from the losing player equally. Also note in this situation that the quitter is losing 10 elo for the karma hit that goes nowhere. Instead those points can go to the players. So in a 4p game each player is already guaranteed 3.33 elo in addition to there equal share of whatever elo is split evenly. To be clear if a player has increased k factor they should still get their equivalent.

Definitely do not want that. You should get what you get for beating the player naturally, no more and no less. So those with more rating get fewer points and those with less rating get more points relative to each other. The rating the quitter lost for the karma deduction is also just a net loss, that's a penalty for them, not rating to be transferred to other players.

There is no additional -10 Elo loss for quitting. This idea probably stems from the misleading/bad text placement on the game results page. The "-10" label refers to karma, even though yes, it really looks like it's talking about Elo. See https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=483253833 for example, and hover on the Elo calculation on the quit player. They lost Elo for losing against every other player, they did not lose 10 extra.

By the way, can players really lose Elo from another quitting? In that game, RazorOz was prevented on getting negative Elo, hover over RazorOz's calculation and you'll see, "You cannot lose Elo when a player quits a game". Otherwise they would have got around -2. So maybe that part has been fixed (again?), or it is a bug that appears inconsistently.

I knew there was a karma hit for quitting, but for some reason I also assumed there was an additional elo hit too, lol. Wouldn't be surprised if I just overlooked how they placed it. (Edit: apparently I misread the game I went and checked, yeah, there is a rating hit too.)

I'm assuming the OP wants the tie spread to be removed, so they can gain points for winning, and not have any deductions for a draw, even if it won't go to the negatives.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 17:15

ErikLevin wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 16:51

Ceaseless wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 15:14


Definitely do not want that. You should get what you get for beating the player naturally, no more and no less. So those with more rating get fewer points and those with less rating get more points relative to each other. The rating the quitter lost for the karma deduction is also just a net loss, that's a penalty for them, not rating to be transferred to other players.

There is no additional -10 Elo loss for quitting. This idea probably stems from the misleading/bad text placement on the game results page. The "-10" label refers to karma, even though yes, it really looks like it's talking about Elo. See https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=483253833 for example, and hover on the Elo calculation on the quit player. They lost Elo for losing against every other player, they did not lose 10 extra.

By the way, can players really lose Elo from another quitting? In that game, RazorOz was prevented on getting negative Elo, hover over RazorOz's calculation and you'll see, "You cannot lose Elo when a player quits a game". Otherwise they would have got around -2. So maybe that part has been fixed (again?), or it is a bug that appears inconsistently.

I knew there was a karma hit for quitting, but for some reason I also assumed there was an additional elo hit too, lol. Wouldn't be surprised if I just overlooked how they placed it.

I'm assuming the OP wants the tie spread to be removed, so they can gain points for winning, and not have any deductions for a draw, even if it won't go to the negatives.

There is a elo hit. Erik you've posted this elsewhere also but I didn't feel like correcting you. Why are you under this impression? If you go to razor's last game of heat you can just click on the player who was penalized. It will show that they went from 330 elo to 292. They would've only lost 28 for last place. The additional 10 is a karma hit as well as elo hit.

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 16:13

Ceaseless wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 15:14

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 11:59

The solution above is better than what we have now but it isn’t a fix. If I’m an expert and some average player quits this means I still only get 1.something elo. Are either of these possible solutions?

Yes, higher rated players should still be getting their standard minimal gains for a lower rated player's loss. The one adjustment I do think should go in their favor is removing the nonsensical percentage ratings BGA has. The quitter lost, full points should be awarded accordingly.

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 11:59 There are a few options. One is that all non quitters tie and split elo from the losing player equally. Also note in this situation that the quitter is losing 10 elo for the karma hit that goes nowhere. Instead those points can go to the players. So in a 4p game each player is already guaranteed 3.33 elo in addition to there equal share of whatever elo is split evenly. To be clear if a player has increased k factor they should still get their equivalent.

Definitely do not want that. You should get what you get for beating the player naturally, no more and no less. So those with more rating get fewer points and those with less rating get more points relative to each other. The rating the quitter lost for the karma deduction is also just a net loss, that's a penalty for them, not rating to be transferred to other players.

Technically on average the highest rated player would still get less and the lower rated players would still get more than if the game finished. It is more even like this. This way everyone still "wins" instead of someone (the highest rated player) getting the short end of the stick. As of now when this happens you will have high rated players getting 0 or under 1 while a low elo player will get double digit elo for a game they were most likely losing. That is why they are the lower elo player to begin with. So with this solution all non quitters would get an equal amount. The higher rated player still wouldn't get what they would for winning if the game finished. That seems fair to me and I don't see a need for the quitters elo to be a net loss. By them quitting they lose to all the other players so since elo is taken from them anyway why can't it just go to the victors of the game? I looked at razorOz history. They have a ridiculous amount of games which were cancelled out due to this and it isn't fair to them that they get 0 pts for all of those games. Them getting a +1.14 elo from just the quitter after a 4p hour long game isn't a solution either.

That depends on the game's outcome, which is unknown. The high rated player could be getting a few points less, or may be protected from losing several points for a loss, which is presumably less frequent, but per game is more impactful. No reason for the rating gains to be numerically similar though. For one thing, that means the higher rated player gained more, as each point is worth more the higher rated you are. For another, the lower rated player has the greater achievement for winning vs a quitting player higher rated relative to them than the relative gap between the higher rated player and the quitter.

Deductions are exactly that. Them leading to a net loss of the total elo is fine. The quitter earned the deduction, the other players did not earn anything related to that. As for whether Razor earned their 0 points I'd have to see which games are referenced. I have no objections to a 0 point win if it's something absurd like a player beating someone 400+ points below them. That said, I do think the player shouldn't have any deductions for drawing the other players, even if the net change can never go below 0. The outcome between everyone else should be unknown, no change, everyone gets a win vs the quitter. A +1.14 gain is also a plausible solution depending on the game too.

ErikLevin wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 16:51

Ceaseless wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 15:14

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 11:59 There are a few options. One is that all non quitters tie and split elo from the losing player equally. Also note in this situation that the quitter is losing 10 elo for the karma hit that goes nowhere. Instead those points can go to the players. So in a 4p game each player is already guaranteed 3.33 elo in addition to there equal share of whatever elo is split evenly. To be clear if a player has increased k factor they should still get their equivalent.

Definitely do not want that. You should get what you get for beating the player naturally, no more and no less. So those with more rating get fewer points and those with less rating get more points relative to each other. The rating the quitter lost for the karma deduction is also just a net loss, that's a penalty for them, not rating to be transferred to other players.

There is no additional -10 Elo loss for quitting. This idea probably stems from the misleading/bad text placement on the game results page. The "-10" label refers to karma, even though yes, it really looks like it's talking about Elo. See https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=483253833 for example, and hover on the Elo calculation on the quit player. They lost Elo for losing against every other player, they did not lose 10 extra.

By the way, can players really lose Elo from another quitting? In that game, RazorOz was prevented on getting negative Elo, hover over RazorOz's calculation and you'll see, "You cannot lose Elo when a player quits a game". Otherwise they would have got around -2. So maybe that part has been fixed (again?), or it is a bug that appears inconsistently.

Yes there is a -10 ELO loss for quitting. Here is an example of two consecutive games for the same player.
Earlier game (617 ELO after): https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=483268813
Quit game (617-18-10=589 ELO after): https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=483276284

All I can think of is that for first time offenders, the penalty is not applied. But in most cases, there is an ELO penalty.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 18:13 That depends on the game's outcome, which is unknown. The high rated player could be getting a few points less, or may be protected from losing several points for a loss, which is presumably less frequent, but per game is more impactful. No reason for the rating gains to be numerically similar though. For one thing, that means the higher rated player gained more, as each point is worth more the higher rated you are. For another, the lower rated player has the greater achievement for winning vs a quitting player higher rated relative to them than the relative gap between the higher rated player and the quitter.

Deductions are exactly that. Them leading to a net loss of the total elo is fine. The quitter earned the deduction, the other players did not earn anything related to that. As for whether Razor earned their 0 points I'd have to see which games are referenced. I have no objections to a 0 point win if it's something absurd like a player beating someone 400+ points below them. That said, I do think the player shouldn't have any deductions for drawing the other players, even if the net change can never go below 0. The outcome between everyone else should be unknown, no change, everyone gets a win vs the quitter. A +1.14 gain is also a plausible solution depending on the game too.

The whole purpose to op proposal is that good players shouldn't be penalized for others quitting which would still happen in the discussed everyone 1v1 with the quitter "fix". The problem is that these aren't 1v1 and so they shouldn't be treated as such. In my proposal the "unknowns" are replaced with a known. All should've could've would've are thrown out and there is just 1 loser and several winners in a multiplayer game. Because the quitter created this scenario they are being held liable to compensate all the other players and there isn't even a need for an extra deduction because we can use the deduction already in place to help with this solution.

If you want to use reasons like elo means more the higher you get so it shouldn't be exactly even I wouldn't be opposed to that. But the high elo players deserve something reasonable for what they would've got for winning a 4p game. Whatever that reasonable number is depending on the game it can come from the quitter whose elo is already going nowhere anyway.

Agree. ELO SYSTEM (and other problems) IS VERY VERY VERY WRONG.

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 19:41

Ceaseless wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 18:13 That depends on the game's outcome, which is unknown. The high rated player could be getting a few points less, or may be protected from losing several points for a loss, which is presumably less frequent, but per game is more impactful. No reason for the rating gains to be numerically similar though. For one thing, that means the higher rated player gained more, as each point is worth more the higher rated you are. For another, the lower rated player has the greater achievement for winning vs a quitting player higher rated relative to them than the relative gap between the higher rated player and the quitter.

Deductions are exactly that. Them leading to a net loss of the total elo is fine. The quitter earned the deduction, the other players did not earn anything related to that. As for whether Razor earned their 0 points I'd have to see which games are referenced. I have no objections to a 0 point win if it's something absurd like a player beating someone 400+ points below them. That said, I do think the player shouldn't have any deductions for drawing the other players, even if the net change can never go below 0. The outcome between everyone else should be unknown, no change, everyone gets a win vs the quitter. A +1.14 gain is also a plausible solution depending on the game too.

The whole purpose to op proposal is that good players shouldn't be penalized for others quitting which would still happen in the discussed everyone 1v1 with the quitter "fix". The problem is that these aren't 1v1 and so they shouldn't be treated as such. In my proposal the "unknowns" are replaced with a known. All should've could've would've are thrown out and there is just 1 loser and several winners in a multiplayer game. Because the quitter created this scenario they are being held liable to compensate all the other players and there isn't even a need for an extra deduction because we can use the deduction already in place to help with this solution.

If you want to use reasons like elo means more the higher you get so it shouldn't be exactly even I wouldn't be opposed to that. But the high elo players deserve something reasonable for what they would've got for winning a 4p game. Whatever that reasonable number is depending on the game it can come from the quitter whose elo is already going nowhere anyway.

Yes, all should'ves, could'ves, etc. are thrown out. The quitter lost, and everyone else beat them. There was no first place in the free for all, just a last place. Everyone else beat 1 player, and they didn't beat or lose to anyone else. The gains will be less than what a player would have gotten for beating everyone, since that didn't happen, and more than they would have gotten if they has lost to everyone besides said quitter, since that didn't happen either. I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no need for an extra deduction" when said extra deduction is there to penalize the quitter and that's it. It's not to "compensate other players", it's just a penalty on that player.

h_illes wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 19:25

ErikLevin wrote: ↑11 March 2024, 16:51 There is no additional -10 Elo loss for quitting. This idea probably stems from the misleading/bad text placement on the game results page. The "-10" label refers to karma, even though yes, it really looks like it's talking about Elo. See https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=483253833 for example, and hover on the Elo calculation on the quit player. They lost Elo for losing against every other player, they did not lose 10 extra.

By the way, can players really lose Elo from another quitting? In that game, RazorOz was prevented on getting negative Elo, hover over RazorOz's calculation and you'll see, "You cannot lose Elo when a player quits a game". Otherwise they would have got around -2. So maybe that part has been fixed (again?), or it is a bug that appears inconsistently.

Yes there is a -10 ELO loss for quitting. Here is an example of two consecutive games for the same player.
Earlier game (617 ELO after): https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=483268813
Quit game (617-18-10=589 ELO after): https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=483276284

All I can think of is that for first time offenders, the penalty is not applied. But in most cases, there is an ELO penalty.

Thank you for correcting me on this and clearing it up with an example.
The popup detailing the calculation is just blatantly wrong. On https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=483276284, the quit player's "Details of Elo calculation" says: "Before this game: 606.52", which is completely incorrect, as you say, their Elo before that game was 616.52.
Just another BGA thing...