So I was talking with another player after losing 50 elo points in 2 games (same game). We agreed that sometimes it just feels bad losing so many points, and even sometimes we will avoid playing a game (unless a favourite) if we've done well at it, and we think we are going to lose points. Similarly you may avoid opponents who you think may take a lot of points off you. And then there's the 'beginner' player, who's actually very experienced offline, so they beat you unexpectedly, and rob a ton of points. That doesn't feel good either.
Now the above example of losing 50pts was a bit extreme. And, to be fair, I was not that experienced at the game, (though I liked it and had already achieved some notable victories against higher ranked players) so my K factor was still 30. So reasonable enough that I lost a lot of points. Live by the sword, and die by it, some would say. But when you have played a game quite a lot, and some slightly flukey result (maybe caused by the 'beginner' player above) results in a heavy points loss (say 20) it can hurt some of us. Especially if it knocks you down a ranking. Or just as depressingly, back to 100 again (which is now the equivalent of zero in some ways.)
You may say lighten up, its only points. And I agree, its not money and its only a game. I know some players are astonished that anyone cares much, because they are only interested in having a fun time (even though they may compete fiercely to win the game). And of course, that is great, and I have absolutely no problem with that. But there is an element of pride, prestige and competitiveness (outside of just winning a single game) which is important to some of us. And why have a points system, if no one really cares about it?!
So to get to the point above (heh heh), I'm wondering if the K factor is skewed a bit towards taking lots of points off people, and not giving them so many. Especially if they are somewhat more experienced players (in terms of numbers of games). They have played a lot of games, but they can't hold that Good ranking. Or they never seem to escape going back to being very very average (I mean 100 points of course!)
The solution? Maybe bring the K factor down even more as you play more and more of a particular game (I leave others to suggest particulars). But also, make it less of a zero sum (at times it seems even a negative) game. Let people still gain a decent amount of points for winning, but with less expense to other players losing. Spread the happiness, reduce the sadness!
Now of course some will point out that taken too far this will devalue the points. There will be, in effect, point inflation. If everyone is a king, then no one appreciates being a king. This is obviously true, but I feel that the current system seems to fall too much the other way. There is in effect an elite bunch of players, and a lot of ordinary joes. Does that reflect the gaming reality? Well probably yes. Similar to real life some might say. Again I have to agree. Still this is not real life. In the real world (so far) many people struggle and suffer disappointments. But in the gaming world we can make things nicer. We can hand out sweets if we want, and our teeth will be fine. We can eat them and feel good. Just a few more sweets please!
Now the above example of losing 50pts was a bit extreme. And, to be fair, I was not that experienced at the game, (though I liked it and had already achieved some notable victories against higher ranked players) so my K factor was still 30. So reasonable enough that I lost a lot of points. Live by the sword, and die by it, some would say. But when you have played a game quite a lot, and some slightly flukey result (maybe caused by the 'beginner' player above) results in a heavy points loss (say 20) it can hurt some of us. Especially if it knocks you down a ranking. Or just as depressingly, back to 100 again (which is now the equivalent of zero in some ways.)
You may say lighten up, its only points. And I agree, its not money and its only a game. I know some players are astonished that anyone cares much, because they are only interested in having a fun time (even though they may compete fiercely to win the game). And of course, that is great, and I have absolutely no problem with that. But there is an element of pride, prestige and competitiveness (outside of just winning a single game) which is important to some of us. And why have a points system, if no one really cares about it?!
So to get to the point above (heh heh), I'm wondering if the K factor is skewed a bit towards taking lots of points off people, and not giving them so many. Especially if they are somewhat more experienced players (in terms of numbers of games). They have played a lot of games, but they can't hold that Good ranking. Or they never seem to escape going back to being very very average (I mean 100 points of course!)
The solution? Maybe bring the K factor down even more as you play more and more of a particular game (I leave others to suggest particulars). But also, make it less of a zero sum (at times it seems even a negative) game. Let people still gain a decent amount of points for winning, but with less expense to other players losing. Spread the happiness, reduce the sadness!
Now of course some will point out that taken too far this will devalue the points. There will be, in effect, point inflation. If everyone is a king, then no one appreciates being a king. This is obviously true, but I feel that the current system seems to fall too much the other way. There is in effect an elite bunch of players, and a lot of ordinary joes. Does that reflect the gaming reality? Well probably yes. Similar to real life some might say. Again I have to agree. Still this is not real life. In the real world (so far) many people struggle and suffer disappointments. But in the gaming world we can make things nicer. We can hand out sweets if we want, and our teeth will be fine. We can eat them and feel good. Just a few more sweets please!
