Board Game Arena

I'm fairly new to this site, couple months. Really happy it exists. I get frustrated when I lose and then I get over it, or play obsessively until I win one, either way . I've noticed lately I'm often matched up with someone whose ELO I don't come close to. For example, in Parks I have an ELO around 30. I don't even qualify to play arena, which is fine, I need to get better first. But my last couple matchups have been players who have close to 400 ELO. I try to learn from what they're doing, but it also is kind of a downer; I can very quickly see I don't have any hope of coming close. Similar in Splendor. In Ticket to Ride Europe, I just ranked 342 in Arena. I played two games today against someone who annihilated me, and okay, I respect that, but I just got done with the second game and happened to see the rankings on the main page, and this person is in the top 10. ...I'm not trying to complain, if that's just how it has to be okay, it just seems like a really large imbalance and I guess I just wanted to throw that out there.

There are filters (green door if you're launching your games from the game pages) which let you set the Elo range of your opponents when searching for tables. Bear in mind that for some games, this can make it harder to find opponents.

You being ranked 342 and playing someone in the top 10 doesn't sound like such a big difference. I mean, the system has to find them people to play. Otherwise they would be playing the same players in the top 50 all the time.

The match up may be unbalanced but I suppose there may still be a small chance to beat them. If you have like a 10% chance, you should try to capitalize on that, because every time you manage to win against someone ranked much higher than you, you'll get a lot of points.

Ultimately being matched against top players is not disadvantageous for you, ranking wise, although it can be frustrating if you're more interested in only playing against people of similar level.

nik592 wrote: ↑08 September 2026, 00:56 There are filters (green door if you're launching your games from the game pages) which let you set the Elo range of your opponents when searching for tables. Bear in mind that for some games, this can make it harder to find opponents.

OP is referring to arena games.

There are 555 ( ! ) Elite players in Ticket to Ride Europe, so there is going to be a very wide range of Elo matchups.

The lowest ranked Elite Arena player has an Elo of 100. Amazing that a player who can barely win a game can get to Elite in a game that has 5 Arena tiers. Just need to get lucky 3 in a row at each tier and advance to the next tier permanently.

But this is not a game where Elo goes very high anyway (780 at the time I'm looking), so if someone is good enough to hold their own in Elite league, they are good enough to have a small chance of winning against any player.

It's not like an average Chess player having to face Magnus Carlsen. In that case, the odds of winning would be virtually zero.

780 is higher than a lot of games I play.

The player I was referring to is not what I would refer to as "holding one's own". This player rarely wins. 23% win rate, so, slightly higher than 1% probability of winning 3 in a row. To do that 4 times in one arena season and get to Elite... not easy.

tbhp wrote: ↑08 September 2026, 18:20 But this is not a game where Elo goes very high anyway (780 at the time I'm looking), so if someone is good enough to hold their own in Elite league, they are good enough to have a small chance of winning against any player

Is this also your take on Harmonies?

Ceaseless wrote: ↑08 September 2026, 18:57 Is this also your take on Harmonies?

Yes, players whose Elo is in the 300s can beat top players sometimes.

Also, I find the OP's perspective a bit defeatist. After all, we all used to be at lower Elos. Trying to figure out how to beat players ranked higher than you is how you get better at a game. It's not like Chess where the game takes years to master and going straight against a Grandmaster would be a bit vain. With games that top out at 800 Elo, a starting player can quickly get good if they put some thought into what they are doing.

FrankJones wrote: ↑08 September 2026, 18:36 The player I was referring to is not what I would refer to as "holding one's own". This player rarely wins. 23% win rate, so, slightly higher than 1% probability of winning 3 in a row. To do that 4 times in one arena season and get to Elite... not easy.

It's a bit absurd to take as example games they have played less than 20 times. In Ticket to Ride Europe, they did qualify for Elite league and they've been holding their Arena score across many games, which means them qualifying was not a fluke.

Mathematically, their chances against top players are not very high, but they are not negligible. At a gap of 400 Elo, it's still over a 5% chance chance that the lower rated player wins. If it was me, I'd try to capitalize on that and do anything to make it happen.

tbhp wrote: ↑08 September 2026, 18:20 But this is not a game where Elo goes very high anyway (780 at the time I'm looking), so if someone is good enough to hold their own in Elite league, they are good enough to have a small chance of winning against any player.

It's not like an average Chess player having to face Magnus Carlsen. In that case, the odds of winning would be virtually zero.

tbhp wrote: ↑08 September 2026, 19:33

Ceaseless wrote: ↑08 September 2026, 18:57 Is this also your take on Harmonies?

Yes, players whose Elo is in the 300s can beat top players sometimes.

As an aside, you said Elite League, not 300s, and making 300s are stronger than making Elite League. Since the example game seems to be Ticket to Ride Europe, we'll use the OP as an example. They are an Elite League player, but not a 300. In fact, they even made Elite League before 200 rating. Getting 200 rating is probably stronger than making Elite League as well. So within the Elite League we're talking 100s vs said 700s. Elite's upper and lower bounds are absurdly far apart.

tbhp wrote: ↑08 September 2026, 19:33 Also, I find the OP's perspective a bit defeatist. After all, we all used to be at lower Elos. Trying to figure out how to beat players ranked higher than you is how you get better at a game. It's not like Chess where the game takes years to master and going straight against a Grandmaster would be a bit vain. With games that top out at 800 Elo, a starting player can quickly get good if they put some thought into what they are doing.

Beating players better than you doesn't mean you have to aim right at the top though. It can start with small gaps first and climb from there. Nothing wrong with the occasional massive gap, but I can see why players wouldn't want to regularly keep running into it.