Why ELO doesn't suit to BGA

[senatorhung]

Thanks you all for your continuous feedback on this question. This is very helpul as we are still thinking about improving the ranking system.

What we have in mind at now has slightly evolved compared this this "Seasons point" system, but our objectives remains the same :

• We want to introduce regular "Seasons", to give you permanent achievements when you reach the top, in replacement of the current "volatile" trophy that you lose as soon as you lose your ranking.
• We want to give "Seasons trophies" to players who really deserve it, which means you won't be able to win a trophy just by beating a beginner every month.
• We want a system than is less discouraging for weak players. At now they starts at 1500, and then decrease to 1200-1300 after few games which is quite discouraging.

What we have in mind at now :

• Keep the ELO for ranking.
• At the beginning of each Seasons, decrease the ELOs of everyone to a starting point (ex : to 1900 for those above 1900, to 1700 for those between 1700 and 1900, ...).
• From that point, this would be the start of the "ELO race" for this new Season.
• At the same time, there would be a minimum for ELO (beginner level) to make sure no player could not get a lesser rank than a beginner.

The "ELO reset" seems quite rude, but each time we are launching a new game on BGA everyone is starting at 1500 and the first month there is a really good competitive atmosphere to "take the first trophies" for this game. Our idea is to re-create this dynamic each Season for each game to avoid a "static" competition like it is right now.

... and of course current ELO leaders would automatically received the "first" Seasons trophies to materialize their achievements with the previous system.

i like a lot of the ideas in here. that said, i'm wondering why you couldn't introduce a separate seasonal ELO stat separate from the regular ELO. your regular ELO could continue to be a BGA member only feature, while the seasonal ELO could be seen by everyone. your titles would still be based on your regular ELO, and the regular ELO would still be used for game restrictions so that aspect will not be affected by your seasonal performance. your seasonal ELO could have a different name to avoid confusion between the 2 stats, and by splitting the 2 ELO scores, you could avoid seeding the seasons ... just have everyone start their seasonal ELO at 1500.

i still like the idea of replacing the current temporary trophies with the seasonal ones (while awarding the first ones to the current leaders). i'm assuming that only the top seasonal trophy would count, so once someone gets the #1 seasonal trophy, they will no longer be able to gain any more prestige points for ELO trophies from that game. that would encourage players to aim for trophies in other games if they want to still compete on the prestige leaderboards ... which will start being more volatile as more players aim for the top trophies in more games instead of just their favourites.

so, the regular ELO scores will still be useful for game matchups, but since the trophies and prestige will reflect the top performance, that takes a lot of pressure off of maintaining the regular ELO score, which might encourage more risk-taking / flexibility in opponent and game selection.

[demiurgsage]

I suppose that an introduction of the minimum ELO level is a wrong way to support beginners. There is a lot of possibilities to support them.

• 1. Create strategy guides and teaching videos.
  2. Make a list of games of experienced players with comments what move and why they did.
  3. Make "Elo off" and "Average players and below" as default options for beginners.
  4. Create a hint option that will show a possible move to a player.
  5. Many people don't mind to teach others. You can make a tool that allow one player to show a move to other player. That would make teaching easier. Or you can make a reminder for beginners that they can ask help of other players if they can't understand how to play by themselves.
  6. If you implement a decay of the rating for top players you can also implement a negative decay for the worst players but it shouldn't be to quick.

I suppose BGA is the site for adults not for children. So you should treat your users as adults who do not require excessive care. If players don't want to compete they can play ELO off. You can make the interface more user-friendly to allow users to hide the games they don't want to play and to show only the games they want to play. E.g. create options to show only ELO on/off games, or only the games that needed 3-4 players at the table and to hide the games that player can't play due to table restrictions.

[sourisdudesert]

There is a lot of possibilities to support them.

All your proposal make sense. However, even is there are a lot of adults here, among the 50% of players who have an ELO below 1500, a lot got discouraged and quit the website


About the main issue : maybe there is something wrong because we try to modify the whole system while there seem to be an issue only for the very best players.

Maybe we should create a special title "Elite" for the 10% best active players for each game (regardless their ELO), and change the system only for these ones. For ex : only these one would be affected by a "Seasonnal ELO reset".

[Willie333b]

But I think that ELO on for beginners is OK, default is not pretty good.

[demiurgsage]

There is a lot of possibilities to support them.

However, even is there are a lot of adults here, among the 50% of players who have an ELO below 1500, a lot got discouraged and quit the website

Online boardgames never become an entertainment for all. Even in real life there are many people who don't like boardgames. And there is nothing wrong when you try new thing and understand that it isn't for you to give up it. If 10% of people who try BGA play on it time to time that's very good conversion.

[latexrhombus]

About the main issue : maybe there is something wrong because we try to modify the whole system while there seem to be an issue only for the very best players.

Maybe we should create a special title "Elite" for the 10% best active players for each game (regardless their ELO), and change the system only for these ones. For ex : only these one would be affected by a "Seasonnal ELO reset".

I strongly agree the only modifications would need to be for the top players, however, I still believe the top players would be most frustrated by resetting ELOs and just instituting a decay on that group would solve the problem more effectively.

[demiurgsage]

I think the best solution would be to fix some ELO issues at 1st step. And create seasons in addition to ELO at 2nd step. For me the best way to determine the season's winner is a tournament.

[latexrhombus]

For me the best way to determine the season's winner is a tournament.

I like the idea of a tournament too because I imagine that would take very little restructuring. It would work the same as existing tournaments, just by invitation only for those who qualified. It also significantly reduces the chance of a cheater winning since they would not only have to boost their ELO without getting caught, they would also have to win a tournament against the best players.

[glitter and doom]

About the main issue : maybe there is something wrong because we try to modify the whole system while there seem to be an issue only for the very best players.

What is exactly the issue with the very best players? You're going to punish the players because they are too good?

[glitter and doom]

Regarding inactive players and players who play rarely. You can solve this issue in several ways:

• increasing the required number of ranked games in the period (currently only one)
• shortening the period (currently 60 days; this is probably not so good idea because turn based games can last upto 60 days)
• introducing a requirement to play ranked games against opponents of a certain level
• introducing seasonal points as a base for ranking
• etc.

However, Elo decay is, in my opinion, the worst idea by far. It is unfair, unjustified, and mathematically illogical. It is in contradiction with Elo system itself.

There is no such thing as Elo decay in FIDE rankings. I played the last ranked chess game 26 years ago, and I still have the same Elo (of course, I am considered inactive, and I do not appear on the ranking list).

There is also no decay on Yucata & Brettspielwelt.