Overall XP declines?

[tbhp]

I'd say that's a strong reason for not sorting the trophies by XP

Indeed, I was thinking that's a bit of a forced reason, but sorting by XP seems appropriate enough for the most part. It's just that maybe the sorting should be combined with other things, like grouping same types of achievements together.

[tbhp]

I don't think it's crazy for the biggest tournaments (and a tournament can go beyond 512 players with group settings), like how are we comparing that's not in the same ballpark as Arena. I know for me I'd far rather win a major tournament than Arena (and I'm not saying make tournaments bigger than Arena anyway), and it's harder for me to do. What you describe about Arena some will see as a good thing, but in other ways it's a negative. If you are the best player at game (ignoring high luck games that probably don't even really have a best player), you are very likely to win an Arena season, providing you play enough games, that ends up coming quite repetitive after a while. That ends up discouraging the competition I think.

I talk biased by my own perspectives, I have won 10 Heat Arena seasons in a row, but I can't imagine it's the only game like that, where the end result is the competitive scene is not in Arena. The reason being that very few of the top players are actually playing Arena, especially if you excludes those who play a few token games over the course of a season, maybe like 10-20% of the top 20 players are playing, whereas 100% of them are playing tournaments, private leagues etc.

I think the end result of what I'm saying is Arena doesn't need to be pushed as the only competitive mode. I don't have a problem with it being pushed as the competitive mode, but it's value isn't 200x tournaments, that's a joke, and makes a mockery of the XP system.

I think your perspective reinforces my point. For you it's a joke because you can win it any time you want, whereas tournaments are a bit more uncertain (need some luck on your side when your fate is decided by a small amount of games). This precisely shows that Arena rewards the best player and that in order to win it, a player needs to be at your level or at least close to it.

Arena is easier for you because it's catered towards favoring the best players, but for everyone else it's harder. Other players can have a shot at winning tournaments, but they will never win Arena unless they become good enough to do so. That's why it's the most difficult and is regarded as the holy grail.

It's like if Magnus Carlsen said "well for me holding the highest ELO ever is easy, I just need to keep playing games. In tournaments I may actually lose, so winning tournaments is harder than being top ELO". His perspective would be obviously biased and only reflective of his own situation.

[RazorOz]

What they want is to get people playing as much as possible and thats what arena does not tournaments. You want fairness, a legit competitive scene (tournaments) to be given more recognition, etc but these things aren't bga's priority. And that's why as you've mentioned they award more xp for simply reaching elite in an arena season than things like expert and master level.

In the plainest terms surely BGA's goal is to get more subscribers, they don't actually care that much how much you play, outside of obviously the site thrives off activity. I would argue tournaments are BGA's largest untapped potential in order to get more subscribers, given it's a format nearly every e-sport etc. operates off, every thriving competitive scene is driven by tournament play.

Another thing that has not been discussed yet is that when you look at your trophies (either on the game's page or on your trophies page), trophies are listed by number of XP. What this means for tournaments is that if the value was different for different tournaments, then your first place trophies would be all over the place, instead of being grouped together neatly for you to admire them. This is a strong reason why tournament wins should always earn the same value (and that value should be unique, not shared by any other type of achievement).

Two wrongs don't make a right though, this sort of mentality would lead to you never changing anything.

...

A lot of the people saying that though are people who just don't see value in XP in general. I'm one of those people. Even if XP was better calibrated, I still wouldn't care much about it. I care about the meaning I attach to the things I achieve. And if XP was done differently, there's no saying it would correspond to how I personally value each achievement.

In a way, that's why the current choice of giving every tournament the same XP may be the best compromise: the site doesn't try to tell you how important a tournament is. It's up to you and other players to determine its prestige for yourself.

But maybe the should want to tell you how important a tournament is. That's actually why I said when the tournament changes were made earlier this year, the organisation of them was actually a step back, as the display used to display hot tournaments at the top, now simply orders by date, which doesn't help players necessarily identify the best tournaments.

Re: what you say as why someone chooses not to play tournaments, the majority of it I believe is driven by lack of visibility, and lack of XP contributes to that lack of visibility as it would be another tool for them to stand out. Now, Heat is like one of the most pro-tournament games probably to exist on the site, so this might not apply to all games, but in my experience there's hardly anyone who isn't interested in tournaments at a competitive level. When the Heat competitive scene was put together, hardly anybody said no/didn't want to take part, it's why the uptake of tournaments etc. is up near 100%. People either simply weren't aware about tournaments and how they work, given they are pretty hidden away, or they entered a tournament with which they had a terrible experience in the past that put them off, but that's where it relies on players setting up tournaments that allow them to thrive.

[RazorOz]

I think your perspective reinforces my point. For you it's a joke because you can win it any time you want, whereas tournaments are a bit more uncertain (need some luck on your side when your fate is decided by a small amount of games). This precisely shows that Arena rewards the best player and that in order to win it, a player needs to be at your level or at least close to it.

Arena is easier for you because it's catered towards favoring the best players, but for everyone else it's harder. Other players can have a shot at winning tournaments, but they will never win Arena unless they become good enough to do so. That's why it's the most difficult and is regarded as the holy grail.

It's like if Magnus Carlsen said "well for me holding the highest ELO ever is easy, I just need to keep playing games. In tournaments I may actually lose, so winning tournaments is harder than being top ELO". His perspective would be obviously biased and only reflective of his own situation.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for an Arena style format though, I'm just saying the way it's weighted so highly vs everything else is silly and self-defeating.

One of the issues Arena faces, and this is particularly true the longer a game is, that to have a realistic chance you've got to play a significant number of games. It means most players can't compete by definition, because they don't have the time to be able to compete. That's why it's hard for me to see Arena as the holy grail over tournaments, private leagues etc., because most my toughest competition simply don't have the time to compete in Arena.

I'm not a chess expert, but from my very limited knowledge stand point Magnus is a good example of my point, because everyone thinks he's the best, but he chooses what he wants to play, and people want to see Magnus regardless of what it is. Say I stopped playing Arena, so someone else wins, that wouldn't make whoever now wins it the best player would it, it would just be that the best players aren't playing Arena (which is already the case anyway).

There should be room for both these things to co-exist. Another beauty of tournaments, is in Arena I can make a mistake, and in real terms it has no real effect providing I play enough games to make up for it, in tournaments if you do that, if it's elimination it's probably over, it means the stakes of each individual tournament game is higher. It's actually one of the aspects that I think makes tournaments attractive in sports, e-sports etc. that every game is a pressure game. Because it's like saying the best team won't always win the World Cup, the Champions League etc., yet everyone would rather win them than be seen as "the best team".

[Ceaseless]

I think your perspective reinforces my point. For you it's a joke because you can win it any time you want, whereas tournaments are a bit more uncertain (need some luck on your side when your fate is decided by a small amount of games). This precisely shows that Arena rewards the best player and that in order to win it, a player needs to be at your level or at least close to it.

Arena is easier for you because it's catered towards favoring the best players, but for everyone else it's harder. Other players can have a shot at winning tournaments, but they will never win Arena unless they become good enough to do so. That's why it's the most difficult and is regarded as the holy grail.

It's like if Magnus Carlsen said "well for me holding the highest ELO ever is easy, I just need to keep playing games. In tournaments I may actually lose, so winning tournaments is harder than being top ELO". His perspective would be obviously biased and only reflective of his own situation.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for an Arena style format though, I'm just saying the way it's weighted so highly vs everything else is silly and self-defeating.

One of the issues Arena faces, and this is particularly true the longer a game is, that to have a realistic chance you've got to play a significant number of games. It means most players can't compete by definition, because they don't have the time to be able to compete. That's why it's hard for me to see Arena as the holy grail over tournaments, private leagues etc., because most my toughest competition simply don't have the time to compete in Arena.

I'm not a chess expert, but from my very limited knowledge stand point Magnus is a good example of my point, because everyone thinks he's the best, but he chooses what he wants to play, and people want to see Magnus regardless of what it is. Say I stopped playing Arena, so someone else wins, that wouldn't make whoever now wins it the best player would it, it would just be that the best players aren't playing Arena (which is already the case anyway).

There should be room for both these things to co-exist. Another beauty of tournaments, is in Arena I can make a mistake, and in real terms it has no real effect providing I play enough games to make up for it, in tournaments if you do that, if it's elimination it's probably over, it means the stakes of each individual tournament game is higher. It's actually one of the aspects that I think makes tournaments attractive in sports, e-sports etc. that every game is a pressure game. Because it's like saying the best team won't always win the World Cup, the Champions League etc., yet everyone would rather win them than be seen as "the best team".

This is why I don't take tournaments very seriously, at least not as an individual event. It looks/feels good because it's easier to hype up those games for entertainment purposes. They're romanticized, and so decent for entertainment, but winning one isn't that special for this very reason. It's just whoever got lucky enough for their issues to not nail them this time. They didn't have that fatal slip up lose them the game this sequence of games, or they got the good position in the critical game that mattered, etc. The act of being competitive in the tournament itself is nifty, but the difference between being one of those that won or not, not so much. There is no tournament that I'd really care about the results of. On the other hand, someone's performance over multiple events, similar to how rating systems use data from a larger sample size of games, would stand out much for to me. No game's outcome really matters on its own merits, though I think individual games can stand out for highlighting aspects of play as they emerge.

I believe the best BGA structure currently available is probably the regular rating system due to the relative weaknesses of league filters and the constant resets being a headache to keep refilling, but the system is only a support, and they all have flaws that can be exploited. None of them are close to perfect, even as I say the regular rating structure is the one I think is best I can think of some brutal issues with it. The real quality is naturally the players involved, so even a weaker system can beat out a stronger system with a better playerbase behind it. Enforcement is probably another key layer, any of these systems can fall pretty to bad actors if nothing is done about it.

[Meeplelowda]

BGA should want to encourage a thriving tournament scene, and for people who do care about XP system it does matter to some people, so while I get the point some making of who cares/why does it matter, my feeling is more players would play tournaments if the XP was higher, which would be a good thing.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. I probably cannot guess to within 500 points what my XP is,* but if people are making decisions not to enter tournaments because the XP reward is too low, then I support giving them that carrot to sway them.

*Just to fact check myself I guessed my XP and was low by a factor of 11. Wow. 5 XP here, 31 XP there. It adds up. And even though I found it on the main page, I was just reminded that it's actually right there when you click on your avatar. Unfortunately, now that I've talked about it, it's going to take months for me to get back to not noticing it again.

[Meeplelowda]

or they entered a tournament with which they had a terrible experience in the past that put them off, but that's where it relies on players setting up tournaments that allow them to thrive.

Getting a little off topic, but one thing sorely needed are automated guardrails to prevent objectively ridiculous tournament settings that are going to lead to poor experiences. For example, a setting that prevents only making a round 5 days when the site data shows that this game typically takes 2 weeks, even when played at 24 moves/day. Right now there's just a warning that the time may be too short.

[tbhp]

But maybe the should want to tell you how important a tournament is. That's actually why I said when the tournament changes were made earlier this year, the organisation of them was actually a step back, as the display used to display hot tournaments at the top, now simply orders by date, which doesn't help players necessarily identify the best tournaments.

To put things into perspective, is there an entity that tells us directly, officially, what is worth more between an Olympic Gold and a World Championship? In football, is there an entity that tells us what is worth more between a World Cup, a Euro, a Nations League?

The way the value and prestige of those things is determined is culturally. We may reach some collective agreements, but ultimately it's people who decide the importance of those things, and it would feel off if it was some body or organization that told us what is more important, told us what to think.

Re: what you say as why someone chooses not to play tournaments, the majority of it I believe is driven by lack of visibility, and lack of XP contributes to that lack of visibility as it would be another tool for them to stand out. Now, Heat is like one of the most pro-tournament games probably to exist on the site, so this might not apply to all games, but in my experience there's hardly anyone who isn't interested in tournaments at a competitive level. When the Heat competitive scene was put together, hardly anybody said no/didn't want to take part, it's why the uptake of tournaments etc. is up near 100%. People either simply weren't aware about tournaments and how they work, given they are pretty hidden away, or they entered a tournament with which they had a terrible experience in the past that put them off, but that's where it relies on players setting up tournaments that allow them to thrive.

Plenty of people don't want to play competitively, because they play games here just to have fun, or don't want to play tournaments specifically because they may not like the fixed set up or they may feel like they hold little importance compared to Arena.

So we agree that some people may not pick tournaments because they feel they matter less. What I disagree with is that this has anything to do with XP. I believe the number of XP gained is very low in the list of things that people take into consideration when judging the importance of a competition. They probably don't even look at it. They are probably thinking "is the tournament prestigious, do other people care about it, does it have an aesthetic and a system that appeals to me, do I think it would look good to have on my trophies list". Those are the things that matter to most people, not the number of XP, because like I said, ultimately that's just a number. It doesn't have any effect on the actual experience of playing the tournament, or the satisfaction you'd get from doing well in it.

I think the primary way to make tournaments more appealing is for the organizers to work on designing better tournaments. Have you not noticed that some tournaments seem to catch on and get popular, while some never do? Both offer the same XP to the winner, so the difference must be in how the tournament comes off, how it presents itself to the user. Some organizers are very good at doing that, some less so.

[tbhp]

To give an idea, say you are an organizer, and you want to do something that would give players a reason to care about your tournaments.

Well, there are 12 months in a year. How about each month, you organize a tournament that has the name of one of the 12 Greek Olympians? So you have the Athena Cup, the Ares Cup, the Artemis Cup, and so on. So that would be the subtitle of the tournament, and the general title could be something like "Olympian (insert name of the game in question)". So for example, it would look like: Olympian Harmonies - Athena Cup.

You could even have a nice logo that corresponds to each deity, or a general logo that represents the Mount Olympus. Then, you make the format a single elimination tournament, so that players feel like they are climbing a mountain as they get closer to the top.

Then in the tournament post, you can write something like "Will you successfully reach the top of the Olympus and please (insert name of the deity)?"

There you have it, now everyone wants to compete and become the champion and please Aphrodite or Zeus or whatever.

If every tournament organizer came up with ideas like that, I believe it would do a lot more to make tournaments more popular, than simply increasing something as meaningless and empty as XP.

[RazorOz]

This is why I don't take tournaments very seriously, at least not as an individual event. It looks/feels good because it's easier to hype up those games for entertainment purposes. They're romanticized, and so decent for entertainment, but winning one isn't that special for this very reason. It's just whoever got lucky enough for their issues to not nail them this time. They didn't have that fatal slip up lose them the game this sequence of games, or they got the good position in the critical game that mattered, etc. The act of being competitive in the tournament itself is nifty, but the difference between being one of those that won or not, not so much. There is no tournament that I'd really care about the results of. On the other hand, someone's performance over multiple events, similar to how rating systems use data from a larger sample size of games, would stand out much for to me. No game's outcome really matters on its own merits, though I think individual games can stand out for highlighting aspects of play as they emerge.

I believe the best BGA structure currently available is probably the regular rating system due to the relative weaknesses of league filters and the constant resets being a headache to keep refilling, but the system is only a support, and they all have flaws that can be exploited. None of them are close to perfect, even as I say the regular rating structure is the one I think is best I can think of some brutal issues with it. The real quality is naturally the players involved, so even a weaker system can beat out a stronger system with a better playerbase behind it. Enforcement is probably another key layer, any of these systems can fall pretty to bad actors if nothing is done about it.

Sure, and that's personal preference. Hype and entertainment are also good for attracting players. One thing I would say though is tournaments don't have to be elimination, they can be Swiss, I've long proposed there should be the ability to create leagues, Swiss with cuts, all of which would solve this to some extent.

I think the biggest weakness to Arena is it takes too much commitment to compete, like I don't mean play a game or two, obviously anyone can do that, I mean to truly compete to win. It's going to vary game to game, and obviously I look through a Heat perspective as it's the Arena I know well, but to realistically have any chance of winning Heat Arena you've probably got to play 80 games absolutely minimum (and could easily be 100+), which for a game that takes an hour to play is a pretty big time commitment. And is then contributing to the vast majority of top players simply not competing. Then when those players are all playing in tournaments, private leagues etc. (not sure how common this is for other games), it's not hard to see why those are seen as the highest level of competition rather than Arena. I can't imagine Heat is the only game with this issue, maybe it doesn't apply to ultra quick games where you can roll out games in like 5 minutes, but I'd think any game that takes a reasonable amount of time runs into this issue.