Arena Scoring?

[Major Ed Case]

I don't understand the scoring in Arena. Playing "Can't Stop" I worked my way up to 15th place. Now it seems that if I win a game I only get a couple of points or so, but if I lose a game I lose numerous points, dropping me a considerable way down the ladder.
Can someone explain why this should be and how the Arena scoring works? It becomes quite DEMORALISING.

[Meeplelowda]

I don't understand the scoring in Arena. Playing "Can't Stop" I worked my way up to 15th place. Now it seems that if I win a game I only get a couple of points or so, but if I lose a game I lose numerous points, dropping me a considerable way down the ladder.
Can someone explain why this should be and how the Arena scoring works? It becomes quite DEMORALISING.

I'm assuming you have made to the Elite tier in Arena. As explained in "What is the 'Elite league'": "In Elite league, the rules are different: each player has an Elite Arena Score (EAS), which works exactly like a standard 'ELO rank'." Thus, your Arena score is an ELO calculation. As with all ELO calculations, beating someone you are rated far higher than does not gain many points because you are expected to win, but losing to someone you are rated far higher than results in a larger loss because you are expected to win and thus it suggests that you began that match overrated. ELO seeks to find an equilibrium rating such that over repeated trials you win exactly the proportion of games against a certain level of competition your rating suggests you should. Or stated more eloquently:

A player's Elo rating is represented by a number which may change depending on the outcome of rated games played. After every game, the winning player takes points from the losing one. The difference between the ratings of the winner and loser determines the total number of points gained or lost after a game. If the higher-rated player wins, then only a few rating points will be taken from the lower-rated player. However, if the lower-rated player scores an upset win, many rating points will be transferred. The lower-rated player will also gain a few points from the higher rated player in the event of a draw. This means that this rating system is self-correcting. Players whose ratings are too low or too high should, in the long run, do better or worse correspondingly than the rating system predicts and thus gain or lose rating points until the ratings reflect their true playing strength.

That last part is what I meant by it seeking to find an equilibrium.

Details on BGA's implementation of ELO are found here, or you can read about it more generally here.

[Major Ed Case]

I see the logic in what you say for games of skill, but feel that it is not feasible when set against games that consist of largely random events. (dice rolls and or card draws. Having achieved a high rank that one is happy with, then the best way to retain it (or similar) is simply not to make oneself available for further games.
Who is the better player? The one who who has played 100 games in the season and only lost say 15, or the former who achieved rank in top ten early in the season and then stopped playing?
Now if there was some sort of penalty (Eg: loss of points or Rank for NOT making oneself available) imposed on a basis like each 3 days or some such time restraint, then that would seem a fairer and more logical method of equalisation and help to TRULY reflect their playing strengths.

[Jellby]

Just think of the Arena competition (and the "all-time" ranking) as a kind of meta-game with high randomness. It's not a serious ranking.

[Major Ed Case]

But I am a serious gamer and would not be otherwise.

[euklid314]

As you write yourself, Cant Stop is heavily luck based. In order to get to the top 1 spot you need a very long lucky series (probably 50 wins with only 5 losses - i am too lazy to look it up in the statistics of the current #1). Of course the probability to get such a series is higher if you play the game well - but luck is still more important than skill.

Why should a lucky series in the last 5 days of the Arena season be worth more than the same lucky series in the first 5 days of the Arena season? Elo works very badly for luck based games but as it is now, you just try to get the longest crazily lucky win streak within a season. The one player that succeeds in doing that best will be the Arena winner...

[Silene]

Who is the better player? The one who who has played 100 games in the season and only lost say 15, or the former who achieved rank in top ten early in the season and then stopped playing?
Now if there was some sort of penalty (Eg: loss of points or Rank for NOT making oneself available) imposed on a basis like each 3 days or some such time restraint, then that would seem a fairer and more logical method of equalisation and help to TRULY reflect their playing strengths.

You can't only compare these 2:

(a) The one who who has played 100 games in the season and only lost say 15
(b) the former who achieved rank in top ten early in the season and then stopped playing

You also need to be consistent with the following:

(c) the one who played a few successful games and achieved top 10 but with games being distributed evenly over the season
(d) the one who started 2 weeks before season-end and made a quick successful boost to the top-10

In my opinion, cases (b),(c),(d) need to be exactly the same because they did the same thing, just at a different time. So those need to be ranked the same way. Therefore your suggestion of ELO-degeneration would definitely and objectively cause unfairness between (b)-(d) while a comparision with (a) is hardly possible.

Arena is kind of a fun ranking, that does not necessarily reward the most skilled player. Maybe your player (a) showed more skill in the game, but player (b) showed more skill in gaming/strategizing the system and could therefore be awarded for that.

However - I think the best fix for this would be to rank by maximum value during the whole season instead of end-of-season-rating. So your player (a) would still have a good ranking if they had been top-rated once during the season but didn't stop playing. Doesn't guarantee (a) to be rewarded, but at least they'd get a better shot and not penalized for continuing.

[Meeplelowda]

Now if there was some sort of penalty (Eg: loss of points or Rank for NOT making oneself available) imposed on a basis like each 3 days or some such time restraint, then that would seem a fairer and more logical method of equalisation and help to TRULY reflect their playing strengths.

Players being able to sit on their high Arena ranking is an entirely different issue. I mostly agree with your sentiments, although I care more about people being able to red thumb strong opponents to avoid them. Either way, neither issue is likely to be addressed by BGA in the near future.

[Meeplelowda]

However - I think the best fix for this would be to rank by maximum value during the whole season instead of end-of-season-rating. So your player (a) would still have a good ranking if they had been top-rated once during the season but didn't stop playing. Doesn't guarantee (a) to be rewarded, but at least they'd get a better shot and not penalized for continuing.

I like this. If there is a live suggestion in the bug reporting system I'd vote for it....and then sit around for years watching it not be implemented.

[frogstar_A]

I see the logic in what you say for games of skill, but feel that it is not feasible when set against games that consist of largely random events. (dice rolls and or card draws. Having achieved a high rank that one is happy with, then the best way to retain it (or similar) is simply not to make oneself available for further games.
Who is the better player? The one who who has played 100 games in the season and only lost say 15, or the former who achieved rank in top ten early in the season and then stopped playing?
Now if there was some sort of penalty (Eg: loss of points or Rank for NOT making oneself available) imposed on a basis like each 3 days or some such time restraint, then that would seem a fairer and more logical method of equalisation and help to TRULY reflect their playing strengths.

I agree, the logical thing to do is play unti your Arena score happens to spike to a high value and then not play. I have won about 20 Arena trophies mostly by doing that.

A "non-playing penalty" was considered a few seasons ago, but rejected - in my view rightly. All it would mean is that anyone who wanted a trophy would not bother to play at all in the first 60 days the season (why bother if your hard-earned points are just penalised away?) and instead would do their intensive playing in the last 30 days instead.

The bottom line is that the Arena system simply does NOT reward the "best" players, because
- At skill games you can 'red thumb' all the good players and earn your points only by beating the worst players
- At luck games you just play until you get a lucky sequence and then stop for the rest of the season

I agree with you that it is very demoralising to get 11 points for a win and minus 29 points for a defeat (as happened to me today). Over time I have enjoyed the Arena less and less, and now mostly don't really play to try and get trophies any more, I just play to get to Elite and then switch to playing Simple Games for fun, or Tournaments where the two issues above don't apply.