Other ranking than elo? (link to vote in first message)

[Rhum666Rhum]

Vote for this suggestion : https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=36256

Elo ranking is great, but have quite few issues (possible to cheat playing with friends just to rank up, not reliable in games with high luck aspect, discourage to play with low ranking players, etc..)
I guess the idea has been though for, but I suggest igf possible to add another type of ranking just based on how many player you win over usually. Like if I played many times with player A (and he won over me most of the games) then I get 0 point, in the opposite he wins more often he get 1 point. Points is just "how many player I more often win against than loose". So to have the most point you must play with high variety of players and win more often that you loose against each player. That seems easier to understand and more adaptable to all game.
And playing always with the same player is no use as you will just get 1 point per opponent maximum (if you win more often than he wins over you.)

But maybe it has other failures or this is technically complicated, or just you find elo better

[dgjxqz]

Agree that we need new or improved ranking systems. but this would encourage players to create multiple accounts.

[Rhum666Rhum]

Well elo also does. Even worse as with one account "made to loose" you can get many elo points. But it would with that suggestion be obliged to create 1 account per point. That would make it a lot harder to be descrete using mulriple accounts.

[Jest Phulin]

The main problem I see with this proposed system is that it rewards abundant play, not good play.

Assuming all games are against unique opponents (and even with random skill levels):
Player A plays 5 games and wins all 5.
Player B plays 10 games and wins half the time, winning 5.
Player C plays 60 games, and only wins 10% of the time, winning 6.

Player C, with the worst record, has the most points. Players A and B are tied, even though one has a much better record.

As a side note, many people have changed the original intent of the ranking system as used by BGA. It is designed to better match people of the same skill level against each other -- games between master/apprentice are seldom fun for either, while master/master or apprentice/apprentice games tend to be fun for both. When everyone could see the exact numbers being used (and leaderboards were based only on ELO) is when most of the posts of problems with the system began appearing.

[Rhum666Rhum]

I do agree with side note but read somewhere the elo needs to be visible for the site to run well. So that is why I am trying to suggest another solution that solve the issue. Keep values visible but not easy to manipulate for people with the wrong elo spirit (as there will always be some)

About your point, you're right.. It encourage binge playing. But someone that plays very often have more chance to be a good player so is it that bad? And number of player to play with is not unlimited so at some point this problem could be not that bad

Till, I find it is an issue for someone who is very strong but have no time to play. Maybe this ca' be solved by some calculation like : number of different player you win over * percentage of wins in games. (number between 0 and 1, not between 0 and 100)

So binge playing is not that interesting if player is often losing, but at the same time you keep the aspect "need to play with a variety of players if you wanna rise score"
If you don't play often but win a lot the effet is less strong

Someone that played 5 games all wins get 5 point (beginner at least on bga but strong)
Someone that plays 60 games 10% wins get 6 points (binge gamer but not strong)
Someone that play 20 games 80% wins (real strong player) gets 16 points

(in my exemple over I consider every time the game is again a different opponent, if you play with the same opponent it counts as 1 game)