Board Game Arena

Hello,
this is a proposition of a new feature:
To allow players to challenge a game with a higher rank:
10th could challenge 9 , ... , 2nd could challenge 1st.

This could be fun and this could be displayed in a special window from welcome page.
This could be calibrated in time, etc...
I think time maximum for this should be 15 days.
There must be a fall of 30 points ELO and Prestige, if challenge is refused.
One can decide of a challenge rate: allowed to answer at only one challenge / week (because even, every minutes someone would like to challenge)
There was a similar thing for chess players years ago.

Many High ranked players play elo off to keep their rank forever. Why would they accept challenges?

... the way I propose is to force to play ... with someone near you (not a far elo challenger)
normal, you cannot keep the crown and wait that someone overhead you without fighting

Even working out the kinks...like how this could lead to people being overwhelmed by challenges, I don't like it b/c it forces people to play a certain way. Many games aren't 2 player and even those that support 2 player that may not be the preferred way to play. Many players on here play only real-time or only turn-based, you obviously can't force real-time b/c two players may never be on at the same time. Forcing turn-based you really need to give a few months for a game, but even then for real time players who might only come on once or twice a week pinning them into turn-based games could take a year...or force them to time-out which is unfair. I have a sibling who plays a fair amount on this site, but plays only in real time and frequently won't come on for weeks at a time...a lot of people don't want to have outstanding games that they have to constantly check-in on, they want to come on here in their free time and play a game or two and then not think about this site again until they have some time to enjoy another game.

Yes getting games between top players would be interesting, but I don't see a way to force it. Forcing people to continually accept challanges to avoid having their Elo plummet is counter to what Elo measures. I think leaving Elo alone and going with a different way to reward prestige is the better option. All the talk of punishing people's Elo for not playing will just distort people's Elo in a negative way.

I don't like the idea of forcing people to play, either. We are all here to have fun, right?

sprockitz wrote:I think leaving Elo alone and going with a different way to reward prestige is the better option.

+1

Forcing players to play every day is one of the craziest things I can think about….but I fully agree there needs to be a way to get high ranked players more …"involved"…and I am speaking as a nr.1 in 2 games on BGA…I would be much more adrenalized if I knew that at fixed periods of the year there would be tournaments, or just a master tournament, to prove your skills against all the best…as it is now it's impossible to say you are the best because rarely you play constantly the best…top 10 ranked players mostly stop playing to cheer at their palmares….I can play only a few guys ranked in the top 10 for the games I am nr. 1 at, and that is boring, that's how I also stopped playing..mostly I win against those player so I don't have to prove anything anymore to myself but it could be that playing ALL the better players I wouldn't be the best player anymore, how can we check that? Also, it's very funny on how some of those players stop playing with me when they are top 10 and how they insist on inviting me when they even lost their expert level…

I would hold elo as a "regular season" stat to determine tournament position, elo will tell about your skill but ultimately it's the rewards in the tournament that will tell how good you are…as all major american sports are, regular season and play-offs…

If people don't show up at tournaments they will not be elo-penalized, they just lost their chance to show how good they are and will benefit a player who will pass the turn without playing.

You can also see it as unlocking prestige from elo and locking it to the official tournament/s.

Elo will always reflect your skill, prestige will say how brave and good you REALLY are on top of that.

To prevent people from not playing during regular season and holding their high elo you can introduce minimum fullfillments to be able to enter the tournament, such as for ex. min. x games played of which ?% needs to be against equal or higher level player. And I think that would also be a good system (fullfillments/objectives) just to stay ranked in the regular season instead of the 2 months inactivity….

Problems if to adopt turn based, real time, both, only one of the two systems? Look at Snellman and the Terra Mystica competition….there is a format and players need to adapt if they want to compete….it's turn based starting at 5 days….they found a standard format and you just need to accept if you want to be in….I am a real time player but I also understand the only way to accomodate both playing styles is to find a way in the middle…you can also try shorter turn based games…starting at 2-3 days instead of 5 as with Snellman..

Of course, I don't speak about a challenge "everyday"... and only challenge between neighbour players...
We can imagine that you have to accept once per week for example? (it reminds me Japan old centuries fighters )
We could also introduce "challenge points" to spend or prestige points to bet...