Board Game Arena

I agree resetting ELOs could be harsh. Could there be a decaying ELO system instead? I realize right now players become unranked after 60 days of inactivity, but their ELOs do not change. Could every week a player does not play a game, they just lose a few ELO points in that game? I think that would be a nice middle point as opposed to just resetting them that would encourage players to be active.

Also, I think latexrhombus had some interesting ideas, but maybe a season could just end with a tournament among the top 8 or 16 players to crown a season winner? That way, you would not have to qualify with the number 1 ELO to win the season. You would just need to get into the top group and win the tournament. It could also be something that could be promoted as a big end of season event.

sourisdudesert wrote: As we introduce a "minimum ELO" (ex: 1400), this is going to produce a global inflation of ELO for everyone.
On the opposite, at each beginning of Season, we will "reset" the ELO to lower values => this produce a global deflation of ELO for everyone.
Of course we'd like to balance these 2 things so that ELO is more or less the same than today, except for weak players (minimum ELO) and very good player (who "race" for an high ELO).

It will not work. The games on BGA are too different. You have several thousands players in one game and only 10 in another game. The 1st game will have a huge inflation that easy become uncontrolled and will require manual control to handle it, the other game will have no inflation and will require manual control to handle deflation.

Game Fondue wrote:I agree resetting ELOs could be harsh. Could there be a decaying ELO system instead? I realize right now players become unranked after 60 days of inactivity, but their ELOs do not change. Could every week a player does not play a game, they just lose a few ELO points in that game? I think that would be a nice middle point as opposed to just resetting them that would encourage players to be active.

I,too, thank that there should be an ELO decay system. But I think that it should be based on two things.

First, what is the top ELO? Some games have top ELO's of 2300 or more, other games have top ELO's of only 1800.

Second, how many players play the game? Some games have 100's of players playing every day, other games are only played occasionally.

My recommendation would be to apply a decaying ELO to games that have 'X' or more players playing each month. (Not knowing the actual usage statistics, I would not know what 'X' should be, but I am sure the administrators could come up with a fair number.)

The decay would vary depending on a player's current ELO. A player with a rating in the top 10% would have a larger drop then a player in the second 10%. If a game has top ELO's of 2300 or more, then the drop would be larger than a game in which the top ELO's are only 1800.

Only the top 20% should have ELO decay. Once a player drops out of the top 20%, then there will be no more decay.

The number of games required to avoid decay should vary according to how many players play regularly. And there should be certain requirements for games to be played with ELO on and played against players with an ELO equal to or greater than a certain level. (Again I would have to defer to the administrators to determine the actual numbers.)

As an example, I have the most games played and most victories in Hive, and usually hang out from 4th to 7th in ELO. I pay attention to the ELO ratings of this game. I will play with other masters or with beginners, I just enjoy playing. I don't climb higher because it takes a lot of victories against players with 400 ELO points less to counteract one loss or draw . There are, however, a few top rated players who I NEVER see playing. I have even given up inviting them to play. I believe that players like this should see ELO decay.

Other games that I play, I do not have a high rating and don't really care about ELO. If it goes up, if it goes down, it doesn't bother me. If someone does not want to play, I don't care.

ringersoll wrote: As an example, I have the most games played and most victories in Hive, and usually hang out from 4th to 7th in ELO. I pay attention to the ELO ratings of this game. I will play with other masters or with beginners, I just enjoy playing. I don't climb higher because it takes a lot of victories against players with 400 ELO points less to counteract one loss or draw . There are, however, a few top rated players who I NEVER see playing. I have even given up inviting them to play. I believe that players like this should see ELO decay.

I am not a great Hive player nor do I have a very high ranking in it, but I have played ranked games against Ringersoll. He is (I imagine) what you want a top player to be like. He is friendly and very active. He isn't just holding points to be at the top of ELO.

I actually think for that reason the decay idea would probably fix the system without needing any type of season overall. It would not harm the time players spent in earning their ELOs by resetting them, but would encourage them to play ranked games to maintain it. Ringersoll had some nice points in his post, but I think it could be as simple as players in the top 20 lose 1% of their ELO per week if they do not play. I don't know about exact numbers or what makes sense, but a percentage seems logical.

And when a player's rank becomes unranked, everyone can see its ELO point.

sourisdudesert wrote:What we'd like is to build a competition where you are NEVER discouraged to play against someone

Yes, I agree. But this is exactly why the proposed system is not good. It would promote heavily opponent selection (much more than current system), some players would be frequently avoided, and some would be discouraged to play at all.

I actually think for that reason the decay idea would probably fix the system without needing any type of season overall.

This is probably true.

Mathematically, a "decay" and a regular "ELO reset" are practically the same (you just apply the reset periodically and not regularly). The benefit of the Seasons is for the top players : they would have a permanent award for their performance instead of the current "volatile" award.

sourisdudesert wrote:

I actually think for that reason the decay idea would probably fix the system without needing any type of season overall.

Mathematically, a "decay" and a regular "ELO reset" are practically the same.

No. These two things are equal on average. The result will most likely be very different.
I hope you check your ideas on existing data before implementing.

sourisdudesert wrote:
Mathematically, a "decay" and a regular "ELO reset" are practically the same (you just apply the reset periodically and not regularly). The benefit of the Seasons is for the top players : they would have a permanent award for their performance instead of the current "volatile" award.

If the purpose of the changes is to encourage play, I actually think the volatility of the existing rewards is a better long-term system. What will happen with permanent achievements is players will get them and will never need to play that game again. It may encourage short-term participation but by adding decay and making the existing system more volatile, you should encourage top-level play for as long as the player's plan to use the site.

Edit: I also think adding decay would make the less popular games WAY more popular (which is a good thing) since players will need to play them more often to maintain their prestige.

latexrhombus wrote: I am not a great Hive player nor do I have a very high ranking in it, but I have played ranked games against Ringersoll. He is (I imagine) what you want a top player to be like. He is friendly and very active. He isn't just holding points to be at the top of ELO.

THANKS!
I try to be a good ambassador for Hive.