ELO MADNESS

[Ean WH]

I don't really understand why I lose games by 2 points or 3 points and lose 12 or 13 ELO-
sure, there is a math behind it but it's highly frustrating .

Why doesn't it matter how close the games was?

When I play with real people in the real world and I lose a game by 2 or 3 points
it still feels kind of good because I know it was a tight, a good game.
That's part of gaming, If you play a really good game together everybody feels good about it.

Here I lose a very close game and on top of that I have even more points deducted.
I can play against higher ranked opponents but still lose more ELO points even if it's a close game
and actually have less of a chance of winning at all.

BGA only feels good if you win, it feels punishing if you lose
- and I don't think this is what gaming, board gaming, is all about.

[JDansp]

Wait until you lose 16 elo for tying on tiebreakers

[Tisaac]

I don't really understand why I lose games by 2 points or 3 points and lose 12 or 13 ELO-
sure, there is a math behind it but it's highly frustrating .

Why doesn't it matter how close the games was?

When I play with real people in the real world and I lose a game by 2 or 3 points
it still feels kind of good because I know it was a tight, a good game.
That's part of gaming, the great feeling of a good, close game, the thrill.

Here I lose a very close game and on top of that I have even more points deducted.
I can play against higher ranked opponents but still lose more ELO points even if it's a close game
and actually have less of a chance of winning at all.

BGA only feels good if you win, it feels punishing if you lose
- and I don't think this is what gaming, board gaming, is all about.

Why would it matter how close the game was ??
That reminds me of an interesting thing described in the AlphaGo movie : at some point, the AI AlphaGo did some kind of weird move. After checking again, the team confirmed that this was the best move according to the winning estimation, and yet a player would not have picked this move. Why? Because that move was maximizing the chance of winning, but in many situations the AI player would have won by very little. A human player would sometimes rather play another move that leads to outcome where the difference is bigger, even if there are less chance to actually get to these outcomes, so it's a worse move if what you only care about is winning.
So I personnally think it's rather a good idea to not have score mater at all in ELO calculation.

[Ean WH]

I don't really understand why I lose games by 2 points or 3 points and lose 12 or 13 ELO-
sure, there is a math behind it but it's highly frustrating .

Why doesn't it matter how close the games was?

When I play with real people in the real world and I lose a game by 2 or 3 points
it still feels kind of good because I know it was a tight, a good game.
That's part of gaming, the great feeling of a good, close game, the thrill.

Here I lose a very close game and on top of that I have even more points deducted.
I can play against higher ranked opponents but still lose more ELO points even if it's a close game
and actually have less of a chance of winning at all.

BGA only feels good if you win, it feels punishing if you lose
- and I don't think this is what gaming, board gaming, is all about.

Why would it matter how close the game was ??
That reminds me of an interesting thing described in the AlphaGo movie : at some point, the AI AlphaGo did some kind of weird move. After checking again, the team confirmed that this was the best move according to the winning estimation, and yet a player would not have picked this move. Why? Because that move was maximizing the chance of winning, but in many situations the AI player would have won by very little. A human player would sometimes rather play another move that leads to outcome where the difference is bigger, even if there are less chance to actually get to these outcomes, so it's a worse move if what you only care about is winning.
So I personnally think it's rather a good idea to not have score mater at all in ELO calculation.

if you read what I wrote before: I don't mind if I lose a game, I mind losing a lot of ELO points if it's a very close game. Because gaming should feel good but BGA feels punishing

[DoctorFianchetto]

The ELO system doesn't care how close the game is. All it cares about it win, lose, draw, and the ELO ratings of the participants. That's how it works for chess and all other ELO games.

Designing such an ELO system would mean you'd have to clearly define how "close" a game is for each different game. For chess it's borderline impossible to define that. Granted, for a points game like Ark Nova it's not so difficult, but understandably people don't want to spend time and energy designing a bespoke rating system for each game.

[Ean WH]

The ELO system doesn't care how close the game is. All it cares about it win, lose, draw, and the ELO ratings of the participants. That's how it works for chess and all other ELO games.

Designing such an ELO system would mean you'd have to clearly define how "close" a game is for each different game which is open to all kinds of interpretation.

That's what is missing here. I think playing games should be fun, and I feel that a close game should feel good for both players, like "man, what a game, that was great." But that's not what BGA does, no, if you lose you lose and that's all that matters. You are not left with a good feeling of having played a great, close game, you lose your ELO points so fast you don't know what happened.

Maybe that is how the system is designed: as a new player here you get BIG rewards, of course, then you get hooked, and before you know it you're addicted to playing here.

I felt that BGA was a good place to play games when you don't have a group to play with, but really the ELO system is designed in a way to keep you coming back, and wanting more. Online gaming is addictive, BGA knows that

[Agentus]

ElO is not designed to make us 'feel good'. It is designed to show skill level. New players win points not to get them hooked but because their rating does not yet reflect their skill level. If you reach your appropriate ELO it will always fluctuate because it is not designed to make you gain points just because you win more often than you lose. And just because the score is close does not mean that the game was close or vice versa.

[Tisaac]

I don't really understand why I lose games by 2 points or 3 points and lose 12 or 13 ELO-
sure, there is a math behind it but it's highly frustrating .

Why doesn't it matter how close the games was?

When I play with real people in the real world and I lose a game by 2 or 3 points
it still feels kind of good because I know it was a tight, a good game.
That's part of gaming, the great feeling of a good, close game, the thrill.

Here I lose a very close game and on top of that I have even more points deducted.
I can play against higher ranked opponents but still lose more ELO points even if it's a close game
and actually have less of a chance of winning at all.

BGA only feels good if you win, it feels punishing if you lose
- and I don't think this is what gaming, board gaming, is all about.

Why would it matter how close the game was ??
That reminds me of an interesting thing described in the AlphaGo movie : at some point, the AI AlphaGo did some kind of weird move. After checking again, the team confirmed that this was the best move according to the winning estimation, and yet a player would not have picked this move. Why? Because that move was maximizing the chance of winning, but in many situations the AI player would have won by very little. A human player would sometimes rather play another move that leads to outcome where the difference is bigger, even if there are less chance to actually get to these outcomes, so it's a worse move if what you only care about is winning.
So I personnally think it's rather a good idea to not have score mater at all in ELO calculation.

if you read what I wrote before: I don't mind if I lose a game, I mind losing a lot of ELO points if it's a very close game. Because gaming should feel good but BGA feels punishing

You are missing my point here. You are saying that having close score means that the player levels are probably close and that the game was fun, which I dont think is true at all (see my example about AlphaGo where a very strong player (the AI) was playing towards close scores because it gives him better chance of success, and was not giving any amazing game by doing that, it was just about slowly crushing its opponent just enough to make sure he always win). And since ELO is supposed to be about level at a game, then it makes sense to not take score into account.

ELO system is not about hooking players, it's about ranking them. You are not getting BIG rewards as a beginner, you just have a big K-factor which means BIG rewards and BIG losses. The point of having a bigger K-factor is just to make you reach your true ELO at a faster rate, because many players that just start playing the game on BGA are not beginner at all since they played it IRL. So you dont want beginners to keep being crushed by "fake" beginners, that would not be a good experience. Once you have a stable ELO, then you are likely to be able to play against opponents of the same level, which again will not imply the score of the game will be close, but rather that you will find it's a fair game. And that's the only "addictive" part of BGA, being able to play game against player with a similar level.
So ELO is not designed to make you come back, it's designed to rank you accordingly to your level, and BGA is using that to them match you against similar player, which is what might get addictive.

[Monkeyunit]

I think the best solution is to mianly focus on own mentality in this matter.
Why does the "fun" you had in the game come from teh ELO gained/lost?
Just be glad you played a nice tight game?

If Elo gains/loss really bug you that much perhaps play unranked and just enjoy the game that way.

[greenjacket124]

There is an easy solution here: don't care about ELO.