Why awarding points in Arena competitive mode is unbalanced.

[green_apple]

I would like to point out, that awarding point while playing in Arena competitive mode is unbalanced. What is more the ranking it is just a list of names, and does not depict the top players.

I have played to consecutive games with the same player (happened a lot but I will give just one example). I won the first game, and I was given +10 points, and the second one I lost and weirdly I was awarded -31 points.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=99811435
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=99815595

Many of you will tell, that we do not have the same rank and so on. But if you look at other games which ranks player (games that are played online like CS, LOL, Fortnite ), the amount of points awarded in each game is fixed per game and does not change with expect to whom is winning. e.g. in the upper games, the amount of points awarded in both games should be close to each other, but not 300% higher.

In my opinion this should be fixed, otherwise players will be discourage to play in the competitive mode, once loosing to a lower ranked player will take to many pints. In my opinion the awarded points should be fixed, and should not depend on who is winning.

[GreenP55]

your argument has merit. Yes, there is skill and strategy but we have all won and lost on improbable throws of the dice so the chance factor makes it difficult to justify winning 10 points then losing 30 when playing back to back games against the same opponent. This must encourage players to set their preferences to avoid players from lower levels to protect their positions from being eroded...that's not good for the game.

[green_apple]

I am talking about the competitive mode, arena mode. If I am not mistaken you can not set up filters/preferences on the desired level of your opponent.

The randomness of the game indeed is an issue, which requires more attention and I have to admit can not be fixed. On the other hand, the algorithm of rewarding points can be improved.

[Jest Phulin]

I am talking about the competitive mode, arena mode. If I am not mistaken you can not set up filters/preferences on the desired level of your opponent.

It's pretty hidden, but Preferences (gear) -> advanced preferences -> opponent's level will allow you to set some limits in arena mode.

[GreenP55]

Confirming Jest Phulins comment that preferences allows you to limit the AI selection of your opponent. The options are something like A) happy to play with anyone B) prefer not to play with C) reluctant to play with and D) never want to play with. Those options correspond with levels - so you can set it up that your never want to play any player more than two levels away from you or you are reluctant to play with a player more than one level away from you. The AI searches your preferred choices in the first few minutes of setting up a game and if no game is found the AI moves further down your preferred and reluctant options. If you have set up preferences, then the longer you wait for a game to start, the more likely you will end up playing someone a long way from your ELO - which could drag you down a lot if you are doing well in the competitive arena. Personally i would prefer to play anyone but once I progress a bit in Arena mode it becomes too painful to win 10 points against opponents with a similar ELO and then lose over 30 to someone climbing the ladder from two levels below... so this season i've used the preferences to protect my position. Am i a poor sport?

[Jest Phulin]

...in Arena mode it becomes too painful to win 10 points against opponents with a similar ELO and then lose over 30 to someone climbing the ladder from two levels below... so this season i've used the preferences to protect my position. Am i a poor sport?

In my opinion, Arena mode is set up for the people playing the metagame of ranking. I don't see using preferences to protect a position as being a poor sport, just playing the metagame well. (Similarly, there isn't a boxer/MMA/prize fighter who put their title on the line against a low-ranked opponent. They may do exhibition fights, but not risk the title against them having an off day and the opponent getting a lucky shot.)

[GreenP55]

Thank you Jest, my conscience found your justification very acceptable.

[John-13]

Regardless of what mode you play the game, the awarding of points is totally unfathomable! I have lost a game with just one token on the board and I go down 10 points. Other games my opponent has half a dozen or so tokens left and I only gain 5 or 6 points. A person's rank in the game should not be a factor when scoring; it is very random and unfair.

[LuthienCeleste]

In general there are more players with low or average skill than masters.
If some kind of ranking, be it seasonal or all-time, does not factor in points awarding; then the best strategy to rank up is to play as much as possible since you'll face more low/average skill players than masters. The more your play the more points you get.
For games with a business model of microtransactions like LoL, Fornite or Hearthstone it makes a lot of sense to go that way since it encourages players to play more thus increasing chances they might drop money. But even in those games such scheme is only used for the low/middle ranks. At the top you can't keep a competitive scene if the winner is the one who plays longer rather than better.

And guess what? The same is used here in BGA. Once you get to silver you can't drop down to brown. Same for gold and diamond. An ELO system only kicks in at the top division. As it should.

That being said, I think that Arena points depend on arena rating. Which can be a bit disruptive when a player with high skill (high all-time ELO) joins the Arena season. If you are at the top division of Arena facing such player indeed feels unbalanced because they have the same skill as you but they'll be highly rewarded for wins while you are highly punished for loses. But of course that can be solved by using the options so you never face players too far from your level. So, the current system works pretty fine.

[Romain672]

if you look at other games which ranks player (games that are played online like CS, LOL, Fortnite ), the amount of points awarded in each game is fixed per game and does not change with expect to whom is winning. e.g. in the upper games, the amount of points awarded in both games should be close to each other, but not 300% higher.

I will talk about LOL since I don't know how work the others.

In Lol, you have two rankings: one which is visible (your rank), and which give you a league and some points on it. It still have disparity depending on which team is favorite (sometimes you gain +21, sometimes you lose -18).

And one (mmr) which determine who you will play with next. This is the important part. In Lol, you will always play against player of your level. On bga, this isn't the case. You can have a beginner versus the first player. It seems good to not give full elo point for this match if the first player win, since he should won a lot of the time (don't know enough backgammon, so I have no idea if that number is 60%, 90%, 99%, 99.99%).