Board Game Arena

poichich wrote:

sourisdudesert wrote: At first, we are totally aware of the situation. Some players are really "camping" at the top of some games leaderboards, taking the minimum risks, and this is not what we want for the BGA competition system.

That's my all point, thank you for telling this. Because with the previous posts of the others answering me, i felt like i was the only one to notice this point. Now that it is on the line, i can wait.

You are not the only one to notice this point. You were just ignoring the points that were being made. While certainly there are people who "camp" at the top of the leader board, not everyone does that. It is very true that after 60 days you have no rank. Look at my profile. I have no rank in a lot of games, even ones I feel like I just played. I do not make any effort whatsoever to make sure I get a game in at the 59 day mark to keep my rank. That includes the ones I actually have a high rank in. We don't all do that.

If my rank showed, I would be in the top 10-20 in Chinagold. But obviously I haven't played it for over 60 days. And I don't want to. Not because I'm afraid I might lose. But because I don't feel like playing it. I haven't lost any skill - I can play as well as I could the last time I played. So there's no reason I should lose any ELO, and I'm not on the leader board annoying you. There's no reason I should lose my rank either. After enough time, sure, people lose skill. But not after a few months.

There are lots of things here you apparently are not thinking about:

Is this the only place people can play games? Someone maybe hasn't played a game here for two years, but they might play it elsewhere, including f2f, and not have lost any skill at all.

What about people who play turn-based? It can take a couple of months just to finish a game. Every time someone posts on this topic, I'm fairly convinced they have never considered people who play turn-based. Do we deserve ELO and ranks any less?

Not everyone stops playing cause they're afraid of losing rank. Sometimes people just don't feel like it, or they need a break. So what?

Nearly always, this suggestion comes with outrageous time frames. Say someone knows and likes 60 games. They are on the leader board of 15 of them. But they still don't want to lose ELO points or their rank on any of the 60. So even that requirement of 30 days would require that person to play two games per day to keep up with all 60 games. That's ridiculous unless you have no life. For turn-based, that can even be impossible. (So that's addressed to every person who wants to reduce the 60 day time and hasn't thought through that math. The more games someone knows and plays, the worse that problem becomes.)

But once a day? Now that person above has to play 60 games a day!! Even if they only played the ones they are highly ranked in, that's still 15 games a day! That's not even an opinion - that's just basic math. It is also insane. I'm not concerned cause they'll never do that but....

Your main point was people camping at the top of the leader boards, and I know I understood that point, and since you kept repeating coming on every 60 days and playing for 7 minutes, I'm sure others got the point as well. (Though methinks you exaggerate a bit.) But if that was your "only" point as you're now claiming, that's an insane way to try to solve it, which is why you got the responses you did. I'm not sure it even can be solved, without creating a lot of other problems. And their "solution" is more adding onto things rather than really changing what already exists (regardless of what they might "push"), and is for more competitive people and those who like their trophies.

RicardoRix wrote: Also did the 2 player private tournaments with large prestige get fixed?

I guess not:
https://en.boardgamearena.com/#!tournament?id=27783

RicardoRix wrote: I guess not:
https://en.boardgamearena.com/#!tournament?id=27783

Yes. This is also going to be fixed. Note that there is no point doing this because as soon as the fix will be online the prestige gained like this will disappeared ...

[quote="Liallan"][/quote]

The point is simple : if you don't want to compete, you dont need the ranking... why would you keep something where you are not in. And i think you misunderstand something, i'm talking about decreasing ELO each day by FEW points, not all the points. SO what? you can loose some that's not a big deal on games you don't play a lot.

You keep repeating the idea which translates to "people who play a few games each month should have on average lower ELO than people with the same skill / luck who play daily". Repeating opinion doesn't make it "more right", sorry. After five pages it seems apparent that people don't feel a mechanism of auto-reducing ELO daily "even by a few points" is needed. I'd say - move on, propose another mechanism for improving rating

Personally I think ELO is not an ideal mechanism for determining player skills - it values a strike of good / bad recent games way too much. Five lost games can cost 100 ELO. A dozen won games can translate to +100. This variance doesn't reflect any actual long-term skill change. Also for beginners (below a ~hundred games) ranking exists to keep them engaged in competition, but doesn't reliably reflect their skills.

6element wrote:You keep repeating the idea which translates to "people who play a few games each month should have on average lower ELO than people with the same skill / luck who play daily". Repeating opinion doesn't make it "more right", sorry. After five pages it seems apparent that people don't feel a mechanism of auto-reducing ELO daily "even by a few points" is needed. I'd say - move on, propose another mechanism for improving rating

Personally I think ELO is not an ideal mechanism for determining player skills - it values a strike of good / bad recent games way too much. Five lost games can cost 100 ELO. A dozen won games can translate to +100. This variance doesn't reflect any actual long-term skill change. Also for beginners (below a ~hundred games) ranking exists to keep them engaged in competition, but doesn't reliably reflect their skills.

After 5 pages few players as you always blablating the same thing. So yes repeating the same thing doesn't make it right, that's what i think too when i read you. Another good argument? or can we move on? the admin already answered me in a way that feels nice.
ELO is a ranking system. A ranking system needs to be active, with players, not ghosts.

poichich wrote: ELO is a ranking system. A ranking system needs to be active, with players, not ghosts.

You are confusing the ELO rating system with the Leaderboards.

The ELO rating is used to judge how good a player is at game, the frequency of play is not relevant. As previously pointed out, it's easy to get a higher ELO rating you just have to be better at winning than those above you.

The leaderboards are a construct of the ELO rating system, rightly or wrongly. Players not participating will lose their rank on the leaderboards by becoming unranked. It has already been suggested that the ELO rating system will remain the same, so you should be arguing about the rate in which a player becomes unranked, not trying to modify the highly mathematically and finely tuned ELO rating system.

Regardless, this all seems pointless because something completely new is coming.

Admins said they're going to implement daily ELO auto-deduction?

6element wrote:Admins said they're going to implement daily ELO auto-deduction?

Unless they want a lot of games on here to have a practically useless leaderboard then no, they won't.

RicardoRix wrote:

poichich wrote: ELO is a ranking system. A ranking system needs to be active, with players, not ghosts.

You are confusing the ELO rating system with the Leaderboards.

The ELO rating is used to judge how good a player is at game, the frequency of play is not relevant. As previously pointed out, it's easy to get a higher ELO rating you just have to be better at winning than those above you.

The leaderboards are a construct of the ELO rating system, rightly or wrongly. Players not participating will lose their rank on the leaderboards by becoming unranked. It has already been suggested that the ELO rating system will remain the same, so you should be arguing about the rate in which a player becomes unranked, not trying to modify the highly mathematically and finely tuned ELO rating system.

Regardless, this all seems pointless because something completely new is coming.

I'm talking about RANK, not rates. A rating system used to calculate how many points you win or loose is nice. I'm not talking about that and i don't know why you think i'm confusing. Or maybe there are some problems with my english but when i read "ELO RANK", i'm thinking ranking system.