Board Game Arena

Not here on BGA for a long time but I already notice the great amount of users that have multiple accounts to boost ELO or just get to #1 (for the XP), playing with their "best friend" who plays really bad.

Well, the idea is to give suggestions that maybe can be implemented so that the rule that 1 person = 1 user is applied:

1) since most players in that category want ELO points, so, why not limit the points available to the number of different opponents:

200 ELO = minimum 10 different opponents
300 ELO = minimum 25 different opponents
400 ELO = minimum 50 different opponents
500 ELO = minimum 100 different opponents

If not complied, the user would stay at 199, 299, 399 or 499, until the requirement was achieved.

2) another limit could be the number of played games:

200 ELO = minimum 25 games
300 ELO = minimum 50 games
400 ELO = minimum 100 games
500 ELO = minimum 200 games

3) another is to allow only 1 user per email. This would force the person to create multiple email accounts (not difficult but one more step).

4) analyse the way games are played. If someone is boosting the don't play in a "normal" way... Usually the "best friend" plays really bad and makes moves to lose. There are some games that this is very simple to see... Example: in Backgammon the "best friend" doesn't hit, even tho it is the expected move and all other moves just open up their pieces to single. There are many examples from other games...

5) mobile Vs PC... In most of the cases I have seen the user is always on PC and the "best friend" is always on mobile... Suspicious no?!?! (Just 1 to add up, not really a proof).

I guess most people that play honestly and like the game shouldn't have problems with any of these ideas... An EXPERT or a MASTER in any game shouldn't be achieved in 20 games, playing with the "best friend" and winning all the time.

Any other ideas or suggestions?

ADDED 20/Nov/2020
6) Since ELO is supposed to be a "method for calculating the relative skill levels of players" if 2 players only play against each other (group of 2) it makes no sense to compare with other players (group of 50+). So another measure could be to attribute ELO above 199 only to players that have no games with the same opponent more than 33% of their matches (for non-cooperative games only).

While I support the general idea, there are flaws in the suggestions. (Hm, why is this in Discussions, not Suggestions? )

JPreto wrote: ↑19 November 2020, 20:39 1) since most players in that category want ELO points, so, why not limit the points available to the number of different opponents:
500 ELO = minimum 100 different opponents

There are several games where there aren't 100 different opponents available. Or, even if there are, there are not 100 people whose ELO is already high enough to have a fun game with at that level. Are you suggesting that a player with a 499 ELO needs to find 50 different beginners so they can gain that one ELO? (They've already played the 50 people at ELO 400.) That's 50 games of wasted time by the master and 50 frustrated beginners.

JPreto wrote: ↑19 November 2020, 20:39 4) analyse the way games are played. If someone is boosting the don't play in a "normal" way...

Who has time for this analysis?
If analysis of the game clearly shows this, then the normal report system with the kingmaking option checked should take care of it.

JPreto wrote: ↑19 November 2020, 20:39 5) mobile Vs PC... In most of the cases I have seen the user is always on PC and the "best friend" is always on mobile... Suspicious no?!?! (Just 1 to add up, not really a proof).

Yes, not really a proof. As mobile users become more prominent, even less of a suspicion. In the US, this is known as "profiling," and can get a case dismissed from court.

JPreto wrote: ↑19 November 2020, 20:39 An EXPERT or a MASTER in any game shouldn't be achieved in 20 games,

Assuming that they began playing on BGA. If Magnus Carlsen created an account and started playing chess, I'd expect him to have a high ELO pretty quickly...

Jest Phulin wrote: ↑19 November 2020, 21:14

JPreto wrote: ↑19 November 2020, 20:39 5) mobile Vs PC... In most of the cases I have seen the user is always on PC and the "best friend" is always on mobile... Suspicious no?!?! (Just 1 to add up, not really a proof).

Yes, not really a proof. As mobile users become more prominent, even less of a suspicion. In the US, this is known as "profiling," and can get a case dismissed from court.

This is actually a fairly good indicator for potential multi account exploiters. Though, it should of course not be the sole basis for a report.

I assume you are talking of profiling without any actual evidence. There is never any lack of evidence on BGA, all games are recorded after all, so profiling is actually quite effective.

It seems that BGA has started to moderate based on the number of reports though.

N_Faker wrote: ↑19 November 2020, 23:09 This is actually a fairly good indicator for potential multi account exploiters.

Hm. I guess I'm old school then, thinking it would be easier to open a Chrome and a Firefox window, rather than using multiple devices. I can concede this point.


Oh, wait, opening multiple windows would require a premium membership to bypass the same IP restriction, wouldn't it?

Jest Phulin wrote: ↑19 November 2020, 23:29 Oh, wait, opening multiple windows would require a premium membership to bypass the same IP restriction, wouldn't it?

It would. Unless one used a VPN.

PC/Laptop & mobile is probably so convenient that it increases this particular combination more, if not only because they only have one PC/laptop and one mobile.

N_Faker wrote: ↑19 November 2020, 23:40 It would. Unless one used a VPN.

PC/Laptop & mobile is probably so convenient that it increases this particular combination more, if not only because they only have one PC/laptop and one mobile.

PC (cable) and Mobile (4G) give automatically different IPs. But with a VPN in one it is even simpler...

All of these proposed improvements are secondary to the easiest of fixes, which is to just have the moderators actually punish cheaters instead of not doing that.

It would be pretty easy to ban those people based on public consensus, if several people report them. But for that they would have to allow people reporting people you haven't played with for Kingmaking / ELO boosting. It's really easy to spot, just go to the top 10 in most games and look at people's stats / game history.

If you ask me, not worth getting annoyed about it, especially as I doubt anything will be done about it. Just enjoy the games. Give them a personal thumbs down if you don't want to play with them. It's annoying if it prevents you from getting the badges, agreed, but we'll get over it.