🌿ELO System Updates

[aginis]

I didn't see any comments on partner games so I just want to add my 2 cents:
I think the way ELO is handled in team games (like spades or tichu) is creating a serious barrier for new players to learn and participate.

In addition to the frustration of playing with a poor partner you are punished by the ELO.
Consider the matchup of a strong player and a beginner against an average player and a good player.
Almost inevitably the beginner makes critical mistakes and the strong player is punished because he is expected to beat lower ranked opponents.

This means that better players (who are also usually the ones that care about ELO and rankings) have a strong disincentive to play with lower partners.
Already there is a small pool of players for these games, and this makes it very difficult for new players to find games.
Also when players do end up teamed with a lower player this increases criticism and friction between players.

It also is inherently unfair that partners have a different ELO change for the same result (especially since the higher rated player has the more difficult task playing with a weaker p, while the ELO favors the weaker player).

The calculation should be based on the team's average ELO and the delta should be applied to every member of the team equally (excluding hard bounds like going under 100).

This would actually give higher rated players incentive to partner with weaker players and would probably push the chat around games to be more friendly. I think this would lead immediately to an increase in the number of played games and eventually to a larger pool of players who actively play the game.

[nik592]

Excluding friendly games from the streak count requires extra logic/code.
Also if you are playing the same friend over and over then the ELO shouldn't matter.
Anyways as soon as you play someone else the streak is broken.

It does require extra code, but unless BGA's data structures are poorly designed, it should be a pretty minimal extra piece of logic. Friendly games don't consider ELO, why should they count towards penalising you when you choose not to play friendly games? It's been suggested that people who want to play among "friend" groups, and play the same people over and over should be using friendly games, because their ELO is not a true reflection since it's not part of the larger group. Most people probably don't, but let's say I do, and then I also meet my friend as part of Arena competition. Shouldn't my true ELO be reflected then, given my friend is representing part of the wider BGA community at that point and especially since I've been excluding our other games from ELO calculations?

This shouldn't be an extensive problem, but the fact that it wasn't implemented that way when so much other stuff is excluded from friendly games (eg. win/loss counts, achievements, etc.) does suggest that it wasn't well-planned.

[KenFin1]

If they want friend groups to play in friend groups then create the option. Give us friend scoring leagues and full choice of time limit including no time limit competitive options. Why should friend groups be forced to no time limits? The decision making is really flawed if you think all friends want to sit with no time limits. I have one friend who would wait for a new moon given half the chance considering every option to the nth degree. They only way I'm playing them is with a time limit. Another friend has crazy childcare. The only way I'm playing them is with no time limit, but we're both fiercely competitive and like to score our games.

You see the problem? BGA have an unrealistically narrow view of how their site should be used that doesn't hold up to the reality of the people using it. Something this thread had demonstrated time and time again with lots of good explanation, all seemingly ignored as is becoming the pattern sadly.

[Zozoken]

If they want friend groups to play in friend groups then create the option. Give us friend scoring leagues and full choice of time limit including no time limit competitive options. Why should friend groups be forced to no time limits? The decision making is really flawed if you think all friends want to sit with no time limits. I have one friend who would wait for a new moon given half the chance considering every option to the nth degree. They only way I'm playing them is with a time limit. Another friend has crazy childcare. The only way I'm playing them is with no time limit, but we're both fiercely competitive and like to score our games.

You see the problem? BGA have an unrealistically narrow view of how their site should be used that doesn't hold up to the reality of the people using it. Something this thread had demonstrated time and time again with lots of good explanation, all seemingly ignored as is becoming the pattern sadly.

I'm in the same boat. I would play more games in friendly mode if there were time controls.

[nik592]

The decision making is really flawed if you think all friends want to sit with no time limits.

I haven't actually seen this from anyone from BGA admin I don't think. I play quite a lot with a small group of friends, which also includes my partner - we exclusively play Memoir '44 with each other. Our ELO at that game reflects only how our skill compares to each other, not the wider community, which is just fine with us. But people have said that if you spend lots of time playing with a friend group, your ELO is not representative and it's unfair to the wider community to approach it with that kind of ELO. That said, I'm not overly convinced by that argument, because I think there's one of three outcomes when you play with a small group of friends:

1. You either play ONLY with your friend group and the wider community never sees your ELO, so who cares? This is me in Memoir '44.
2. You play in reasonable quantities with the wider community as well as your friend group, so your ELO is reasonable. This is me in most other games.
3. You play mostly with your friend group, but occasionally with the wider community. My partner does this and often gets beaten at games he does well at among our friend group. I'm applying anecdotal evidence here, but I suspect if anything your ELO is probably higher than it should be, because the chances of you meeting strong(er) players outside of your friend group is significantly higher. And if your ELO is lower, this is the same argument as those who play lots of game IRL, then come on BGA and beat experts from sub-100 ELO. People complain about that too, but admit there's no solution. Theoretically, ELO should end up where it needs to be if people keep playing. And if they do like my partner and tend to retreat back into the friend group, then we're back at scenario 1 anyway.

In short, I don't think there's any reason for friend groups (who may play amongst themselves more than most) to stick to friendly games. The point was raised that ELO against people you play in friendly settings shouldn't matter, so it doesn't matter if friendly games contribute to the win streak penalty. I was trying to present a scenario where that would indeed matter.

[anykidrated]

hmmm it looks like friendly games also count toward the consecutive wins part of the winstreak penalty

And at the same time those friendly games don't even count as wins on player's XP page.

For what it's worth, they *do* count as wins for the winstreak achievements like banzai/berserker. (the corollary is, afaik, friendly losses also break this)

Actually, I might have stumbled upon a genius idea. I think friendly losses might actually reset the winstreak. Who knows at this point.

[h_illes]

Actually, I might have stumbled upon a genius idea. I think friendly losses might actually reset the winstreak. Who knows at this point.

That would be a serious glitch and awesome at the same time. It should definitely be tested. I will look for a chance to do so.

Edit: I tested it, and a friendly loss does not reset the win streak.

*Moderator edit: please refrain from swearing on BGA, this is a family-friendly platform.

[h_illes]

So, um... any official response? If someone from BGA is reading this message, please acknowledge. You can just write 'we are aware of this topic, stay tuned' or whatever, any short acknowledgment will do. I understand that at this point, just reading through the topic might take a while, but a short acknowledgment is essentially zero effort and would send a positive signal to the player base.

[KenFin1]

So, um... any official response? If someone from BGA is reading this message, please acknowledge. You can just write 'we are aware of this topic, stay tuned' or whatever, any short acknowledgment will do. I understand that at this point, just reading through the topic might take a while, but a short acknowledgment is essentially zero effort and would send a positive signal to the player base.

LOL. I applaud your persistence, but I think it's clear by now they're not going to respond.

[h_illes]

So, um... any official response? If someone from BGA is reading this message, please acknowledge. You can just write 'we are aware of this topic, stay tuned' or whatever, any short acknowledgment will do. I understand that at this point, just reading through the topic might take a while, but a short acknowledgment is essentially zero effort and would send a positive signal to the player base.

LOL. I applaud your persistence, but I think it's clear by now they're not going to respond.

Well, I honestly think the decline in the number of premium subscribers will be felt eventually. Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about it. A lot of damage is done already, but it would still be better to act now than never.

I considered writing to Asmodée. Who knows, maybe they care about what goes on at BGA. But I want to give one more chance to actual BGA staff to respond, however late it is.