We've added an elo system :tada: .
Instead of the more traditional chess elo system where elo starts at 1000, we've added a more engaging approach, similar to boardgamearena's:
- Elo starts at 0
- If you lose your first game, your elo still becomes 1
- Your elo cannot decrease until you reach 100 elo
- After that, it's like a normal elo system, with a lower limit of 100 elo
We feel this is the better suited system:
- It avoids discouraging new players that lose their first games
- Nobody likes having a negative elo
- It slowly, slowly, pushes the upper boundary of elo upwards: players will naturally have to keep being active if they want to get to the top of (non-existing yet!) elo rankings!
Elo started being processed since yesterday. We decided to not retroactively include older games.
Also a big thank you to players who gave their feedback on the elo system suggestions, @trojanrabbit who helped us adjust the formula for multiplayer games as well as all the others!
More detail on the elo system here
Now we've done more under the scenes things, to prepare for a new game. We hopefully should get it in beta this week-end and launch it next week. Stay tuned! :)
@coyotte508 Fantastic work, thank you very much!
Great job! Thanks
I didn't understand how does the ELO system manges ties... my last two games ( i guess the only ones that have been counted for elo) were a 3rd place (4p) and a tie for second place (3p) and my ELO is still 1 after the tie so i understand there is no ELO gained from that. Does a tie give you points only if there's someone behind you? (like tie for second/third in a 4p game)
Elo doesn't change if you have the same score. I guess it could be changed.
Right now this site is small so it's not a big deal, but based on my understanding of this post the system lends itself to abuse. Elo is based on a 0 sum system. When you beat someone, your elo goes up, theirs goes down. There is a reason for this design. If you have an elo floor, people can gain elo by beating opponents without their opponents losing elo. This means I could win an infinite number of games against my 100 elo friend without them ever losing a point, with me gaining the whole time. Again right now this doesn't matter, but if this site grows people will abuse it.
In addition, the system you have implemented means the first 100 points don't matter. Why not just start at 100?
The original system that starts at 1000 still prevents people from having a negative elo rating. If you are worried about new players, a 5 or 10 game grace period would give them time to learn the site without breaking the system.
I don't want to sound critical but the elo system as originally designed works well and has decades (in fact almost a century) of track record. I don't think there is a need to change it.
@Semioteric . Thank you for your feedback. We have evaluated different ways to implement the elo system. Every different implementation has pros and cons and, and to your point, also in chess "each organization has taken a different route to deal with the uncertainty inherent in the ratings, particularly the ratings of newcomers, and to deal with the problem of ratings inflation/deflation. New players are assigned provisional ratings, which are adjusted more drastically than established ratings." (cit. Wikipedia.
The current system is a 0 sum system after the 20th game, when the K factor is set to 20.
Before that, it is encouraging newcomers with a K factor equal to 60.
You ask why not start at 100. The reason is that we want to prevent abuse. So if someone wants to abuse the system with a sparring elo partner, the partner will have a elo close to 1. In this case the delta elo for each win will be few elo points.
In any case, we will monitor the system and we will make sure that people is not abusing it ;)
@Babbuc49 it was a bug. Now the ties are calculated in the right way.
Sorry if I come back on the topic, but it is not clear to me how ELO is calculated in games where players drop.
It seems to me that right now you get top ELO even in a game in which everyone else drops and you are the last man standing (thus winning by default). Is that correct? Because if this is the case, this obviously needs to be changed.
In general, I think games where one or more players have dropped should not be calculated for ELO. The first one to drop out gets their ELO lowered as if they had lost against all other players, and from that moment on that game does not count anymore for the ELO of the remaining player(s).
completely agree with @Molfo , and also i would like to add that it seems weird to me that getting second in 3/4 player games gives little to no ELO, at least that's how it looks but i'm not sure that's actually true so i thought just as on BGA it should be displayed the ELO that we gain on each game so we could check how much we gain from being in that particular position against those particular opponents
@Molfo good point on the "last man standing". We were assuming that the others were finishing the game in any case.
We will introduce the ability to cancel the game if some dropped.
Regarding the elo mechanism
If you dropped during the game, you will loose against every other not dropped player.
If some of your opponents dropped during the game, you will win against them, but the matches against the other opponents are not considered for the elo.
@Babbuc49 if you are second in a 3 player game you win one match and you lose the other. So, given that now the elos are similars, your elo is not changing that much.
We are adding the ability to check the elo transactions in the roadmap!
@Babbuc49 you can now check on recently finished games the elo changes. The players elo in those games' sidebar will be displayed as 130 + 25 elo for example, that means that the elo of the player went from 130 to 155.
We're also planning to add a page with all the elo changes for a particular game, but that's for later.
Sorry, I have another elo-related problem: I was playing a game in which one of the player dropped (https://www.boardgamers.space/game/Quick-surface-1392).
So, since when I asked I was told that games where players have dropped are not considered for elo, I told the other players that I was not interested in carrying on with the match, and I let my time run out as well. So the game ended, and now it has taken away 33 points of my elo. Unfair! What happened???
 I just noticed that I lost more ELO points than the player who dropped before me! And the other two players still got ELO points for finishing the game. How is that fair?
@Molfo In a game where a player drops out, the players who dropped lose elo and the other players gain elo but only against the players that dropped out.
Since you dropped out, you lost elo against the two players who dropped out. You didn't lose / gain elo against kimmiboy2.
The reason you lost more elo than kimmiboy2 is that your elo was higher, so when losing against the same opponents, you lose more elo.
It's detailed in this page: https://www.boardgamers.space/page/elo
If you dropped during the game, you will lose against every other not dropped player.
If someone else dropped during the game, you will win against the dropped player, but the matches against the other opponents are not considered for the elo.
Anway, when one other player drops, you have a choice:
- Continue the game (you can pass each round if you want) and win elo against the dropped player
- Drop out and you lose elo against each player who continued
- Vote to cancel, and ask the other players to vote to cancel. You will win elo against the player who dropped. Maybe you can vote to cancel, pass, and the other players can vote to cancel then if they want.
Ok, to me this wasn't clear at all. My understanding was that after the first player dropped, the other players taking part in the game could not lose elo in any way, even if they dropped. Had I known this, I would never have left the game .
Now that I read back what you wrote me last time, I see that the misunderstanding came from the fact that you said "If someone else dropped during the game, you will win against the dropped player, but the matches against the other opponents are not considered for the elo", where the word player is singular, so I thought, after the first one is gone (the original culprit!), the rest is not important.
Next time I'll do as you suggest, I'm just sorry I've lost 33 elo points over a technicality.
@Molfo I added back the 33 elo points. (Just this once! I'm editing the post to make things clearer)
Thanks a lot! Sorry, maybe the elo rules were clear enough, it's just me being dumb. That wouldn't be a first.
Drop out and you lose elo against each player who continued
This can’t be an option in GP. If other player do not want to close the game, you are forced to continue not to be dropped. I can’t play thinking if other players can drop. When a player drops, the game is over.