Terrible ranking system

[Ceaseless]

Completely agree. I strongly think that BGA should switch some Arena Rankings to % of wins instead of that sort of ELO ranking. A strong player will be benefited by showing that he/she wins well over 50% of the games and wouldn't be hurt for a loss due to bad luck. Right now only a good streak is considered, once the player get it, they seem to stop playing, Top3-Top5 looks pretty much the same for multiple days.

Win quality is a thing too though. If someone gets paired vs higher rated opponents then even with a lower win rate they can be expected to play better.

[Ceaseless]

- so how do I get an assigned an opponent who is marked as "my first game" who already has 111 ELO on them? - \\\ Like how does a 'never played before' oppo have 100+ ELO?

What game did that happen in? 111 may be a beginner's rating for people still learning the basics of the game or just acquiring game count, but they still would have had to play before, it wouldn't be their first game.

[1000esqrtn1]

Completely agree. I strongly think that BGA should switch some Arena Rankings to % of wins instead of that sort of ELO ranking. A strong player will be benefited by showing that he/she wins well over 50% of the games and wouldn't be hurt for a loss due to bad luck. Right now only a good streak is considered, once the player get it, they seem to stop playing, Top3-Top5 looks pretty much the same for multiple days.

Win quality is a thing too though. If someone gets paired vs higher rated opponents then even with a lower win rate they can be expected to play better.

Sure. My ideal ranking would be a formula that considers, played games (to guarantee a minimum), win % and win quality. I consider these are the 3 main parameters to consider. Momentum should not be the key factor for a 3 month competition