#14455: "Ways to improve Elo/EAS for 3+ player and luck based games"
Wat is er gebeurd? Selecteer uit het onderstaande
Wat is er gebeurd? Selecteer uit het onderstaande
Gelieve na te kijken of er reeds een rapport bestaat met hetzelfde onderwerp
Zo ja, gelieve dan voor dit rapport te STEMMEN. Rapporten met de meeste stemmen krijgen VOORRANG!
# | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
---|
Gedetailleerde beschrijving
• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de foutboodschap die je op je scherm ziet, indien van toepassing.
Here is the current elo eas formula
For a Win:
RatingChange = K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((YourRating - OpponentRating)/400)))
For a Loss:
RatingChange = -K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((OpponentRating - YourRating)/400)))
K is a weight for each game (first 10 games is 60, next 10 is 40, after is 20 for Elo. All games are 40 for EAS)
P is a multiplier by number of players. P ~= 2/NumberPlayersInGame (more players decreases the amount gained or lost for each individual matchup, but increases the total amount of points at stake for a given game) (if you play with more players than the recommended number the P value actually becomes slightly lower than the above formula.
Proposed Changes
1 Adjust the 400 factor for number of players. Change it to 400*sqrt(numberOpponents).
Motivation: Equalize expected Elo/EAS for multiple player counts, could allow for a fair Arena competition where different player counts are allowed.
Under the current system players who only play 2 player matchups have a significant advantage over players who play with more than 2. This is because as the number of players goes up, the variance of a game goes up as well. Altering the 400 value based on number players compensates for the increased variance so that (on average) players in different player counts should be able to achieve similar ratings.
This would allow an arena mode competition to allow setups with multiple players. This would alleviate some of the wait time angst in arena mode.
2 Adjust the speed at which ratings change (K factor) depending on the length of the game. For EAS, make it a game length based variable between 20-50 (also a variable K value by games played wouldn’t be a bad thing)
Motivation: Too much variance in short generally luck based games, too much time required (too much time spent playing mismatched opponents for all players from weak to average to strong) in longer high skill games.
Right now EAS K factor is 40, Elo starts at 60 but drops to 20 after 20 games are played.
Some games take 2 minutes, others take 2 hours. Having the ratings move at the same rate per game means you can achieve a balanced rating in a few hours for some games (i.e. Backgammon, Can’t Stop, Reversi, 7 Wonders, Lost Cities), while for long games (Terra Mystica, Clans of Caledonia) it will take more than 100 hours. While longer games should take longer to reach a ‘true’ rating adjusting the K factor can be used to slightly mitigate the issue. You can’t make K factor too big otherwise the game to game
ratings swings would be too wild.
3 Normalize the ratings system so each game has roughly the same distribution of ratings by adjusting the 400 value based on the game luck factor.
Motivation: This would give a more realistic distribution of player skill from average through master in each game. Right now games with luck can’t have experts or masters (w/o matchup manipulation or a statistically improbable run of good luck anyway). Right now you could be a ‘perfect’ backgammon player but stall out at around a +100 rating because the luck factor in the game is large.
In a game like backgammon or can’t stop a strong player can expect a win rate of about 60% against average players. So this limits players ratings under the current system to about +100 from the base rating (a 100 rating point advantage indicates a 64% probability of winning). With the ratings volatility players can get on a lucky streak to get to +200 or rarely even +300, but will come back down to an average of around +100. Yet somehow players achieve +400-+500 ratings in these games...that can only be done by strategic opponent selection (or blatant cheating but we will ignore that for this argument). Basically you want to play only other high rated players and then get lucky by winning a few in a row to gain significant points. Arena mode should already mitigate this opponent selection tactic.
This idea isn’t as completely hashed out as the other 2 above, so I won’t offer concrete numbers, but there are a few ways to achieve this. The best is likely to increase the base 400 value for high luck games. A range from 400-900 based on luck factor (already games are ranked as 0-5 luck..could change 400 to 400 + 100*luck lvl). Combining this change with a change based on player number would however be more tricky, multiplying them together wouldn’t be great, it would likely be better to take the maximum of the two values. For this one to work luck ratings would have to be revisited b/c many of them aren’t very accurate (in checking about 8 games I saw at least two that were well off...kingdomino at a 4 and king’s guild at 3 both are definitely too high and lost cities at 2 is too low).• Leg uit wat je wilde doen, wat je deed en wat er gebeurde
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v13
• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de tekst die in het Engels wordt getoond in plaats van in jouw taal. Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
Here is the current elo eas formula
For a Win:
RatingChange = K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((YourRating - OpponentRating)/400)))
For a Loss:
RatingChange = -K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((OpponentRating - YourRating)/400)))
K is a weight for each game (first 10 games is 60, next 10 is 40, after is 20 for Elo. All games are 40 for EAS)
P is a multiplier by number of players. P ~= 2/NumberPlayersInGame (more players decreases the amount gained or lost for each individual matchup, but increases the total amount of points at stake for a given game) (if you play with more players than the recommended number the P value actually becomes slightly lower than the above formula.
Proposed Changes
1 Adjust the 400 factor for number of players. Change it to 400*sqrt(numberOpponents).
Motivation: Equalize expected Elo/EAS for multiple player counts, could allow for a fair Arena competition where different player counts are allowed.
Under the current system players who only play 2 player matchups have a significant advantage over players who play with more than 2. This is because as the number of players goes up, the variance of a game goes up as well. Altering the 400 value based on number players compensates for the increased variance so that (on average) players in different player counts should be able to achieve similar ratings.
This would allow an arena mode competition to allow setups with multiple players. This would alleviate some of the wait time angst in arena mode.
2 Adjust the speed at which ratings change (K factor) depending on the length of the game. For EAS, make it a game length based variable between 20-50 (also a variable K value by games played wouldn’t be a bad thing)
Motivation: Too much variance in short generally luck based games, too much time required (too much time spent playing mismatched opponents for all players from weak to average to strong) in longer high skill games.
Right now EAS K factor is 40, Elo starts at 60 but drops to 20 after 20 games are played.
Some games take 2 minutes, others take 2 hours. Having the ratings move at the same rate per game means you can achieve a balanced rating in a few hours for some games (i.e. Backgammon, Can’t Stop, Reversi, 7 Wonders, Lost Cities), while for long games (Terra Mystica, Clans of Caledonia) it will take more than 100 hours. While longer games should take longer to reach a ‘true’ rating adjusting the K factor can be used to slightly mitigate the issue. You can’t make K factor too big otherwise the game to game
ratings swings would be too wild.
3 Normalize the ratings system so each game has roughly the same distribution of ratings by adjusting the 400 value based on the game luck factor.
Motivation: This would give a more realistic distribution of player skill from average through master in each game. Right now games with luck can’t have experts or masters (w/o matchup manipulation or a statistically improbable run of good luck anyway). Right now you could be a ‘perfect’ backgammon player but stall out at around a +100 rating because the luck factor in the game is large.
In a game like backgammon or can’t stop a strong player can expect a win rate of about 60% against average players. So this limits players ratings under the current system to about +100 from the base rating (a 100 rating point advantage indicates a 64% probability of winning). With the ratings volatility players can get on a lucky streak to get to +200 or rarely even +300, but will come back down to an average of around +100. Yet somehow players achieve +400-+500 ratings in these games...that can only be done by strategic opponent selection (or blatant cheating but we will ignore that for this argument). Basically you want to play only other high rated players and then get lucky by winning a few in a row to gain significant points. Arena mode should already mitigate this opponent selection tactic.
This idea isn’t as completely hashed out as the other 2 above, so I won’t offer concrete numbers, but there are a few ways to achieve this. The best is likely to increase the base 400 value for high luck games. A range from 400-900 based on luck factor (already games are ranked as 0-5 luck..could change 400 to 400 + 100*luck lvl). Combining this change with a change based on player number would however be more tricky, multiplying them together wouldn’t be great, it would likely be better to take the maximum of the two values. For this one to work luck ratings would have to be revisited b/c many of them aren’t very accurate (in checking about 8 games I saw at least two that were well off...kingdomino at a 4 and king’s guild at 3 both are definitely too high and lost cities at 2 is too low).• Is deze tekst beschikbaar in het vertaalsysteem? Zo ja, is deze meer dan 24 uur geleden vertaald?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v13
• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.
Here is the current elo eas formula
For a Win:
RatingChange = K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((YourRating - OpponentRating)/400)))
For a Loss:
RatingChange = -K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((OpponentRating - YourRating)/400)))
K is a weight for each game (first 10 games is 60, next 10 is 40, after is 20 for Elo. All games are 40 for EAS)
P is a multiplier by number of players. P ~= 2/NumberPlayersInGame (more players decreases the amount gained or lost for each individual matchup, but increases the total amount of points at stake for a given game) (if you play with more players than the recommended number the P value actually becomes slightly lower than the above formula.
Proposed Changes
1 Adjust the 400 factor for number of players. Change it to 400*sqrt(numberOpponents).
Motivation: Equalize expected Elo/EAS for multiple player counts, could allow for a fair Arena competition where different player counts are allowed.
Under the current system players who only play 2 player matchups have a significant advantage over players who play with more than 2. This is because as the number of players goes up, the variance of a game goes up as well. Altering the 400 value based on number players compensates for the increased variance so that (on average) players in different player counts should be able to achieve similar ratings.
This would allow an arena mode competition to allow setups with multiple players. This would alleviate some of the wait time angst in arena mode.
2 Adjust the speed at which ratings change (K factor) depending on the length of the game. For EAS, make it a game length based variable between 20-50 (also a variable K value by games played wouldn’t be a bad thing)
Motivation: Too much variance in short generally luck based games, too much time required (too much time spent playing mismatched opponents for all players from weak to average to strong) in longer high skill games.
Right now EAS K factor is 40, Elo starts at 60 but drops to 20 after 20 games are played.
Some games take 2 minutes, others take 2 hours. Having the ratings move at the same rate per game means you can achieve a balanced rating in a few hours for some games (i.e. Backgammon, Can’t Stop, Reversi, 7 Wonders, Lost Cities), while for long games (Terra Mystica, Clans of Caledonia) it will take more than 100 hours. While longer games should take longer to reach a ‘true’ rating adjusting the K factor can be used to slightly mitigate the issue. You can’t make K factor too big otherwise the game to game
ratings swings would be too wild.
3 Normalize the ratings system so each game has roughly the same distribution of ratings by adjusting the 400 value based on the game luck factor.
Motivation: This would give a more realistic distribution of player skill from average through master in each game. Right now games with luck can’t have experts or masters (w/o matchup manipulation or a statistically improbable run of good luck anyway). Right now you could be a ‘perfect’ backgammon player but stall out at around a +100 rating because the luck factor in the game is large.
In a game like backgammon or can’t stop a strong player can expect a win rate of about 60% against average players. So this limits players ratings under the current system to about +100 from the base rating (a 100 rating point advantage indicates a 64% probability of winning). With the ratings volatility players can get on a lucky streak to get to +200 or rarely even +300, but will come back down to an average of around +100. Yet somehow players achieve +400-+500 ratings in these games...that can only be done by strategic opponent selection (or blatant cheating but we will ignore that for this argument). Basically you want to play only other high rated players and then get lucky by winning a few in a row to gain significant points. Arena mode should already mitigate this opponent selection tactic.
This idea isn’t as completely hashed out as the other 2 above, so I won’t offer concrete numbers, but there are a few ways to achieve this. The best is likely to increase the base 400 value for high luck games. A range from 400-900 based on luck factor (already games are ranked as 0-5 luck..could change 400 to 400 + 100*luck lvl). Combining this change with a change based on player number would however be more tricky, multiplying them together wouldn’t be great, it would likely be better to take the maximum of the two values. For this one to work luck ratings would have to be revisited b/c many of them aren’t very accurate (in checking about 8 games I saw at least two that were well off...kingdomino at a 4 and king’s guild at 3 both are definitely too high and lost cities at 2 is too low).• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v13
• Wat stond op het scherm toen je geblokkeerd was (Leeg scherm? Een deel van de spelinterface? Foutboodschap?)
Here is the current elo eas formula
For a Win:
RatingChange = K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((YourRating - OpponentRating)/400)))
For a Loss:
RatingChange = -K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((OpponentRating - YourRating)/400)))
K is a weight for each game (first 10 games is 60, next 10 is 40, after is 20 for Elo. All games are 40 for EAS)
P is a multiplier by number of players. P ~= 2/NumberPlayersInGame (more players decreases the amount gained or lost for each individual matchup, but increases the total amount of points at stake for a given game) (if you play with more players than the recommended number the P value actually becomes slightly lower than the above formula.
Proposed Changes
1 Adjust the 400 factor for number of players. Change it to 400*sqrt(numberOpponents).
Motivation: Equalize expected Elo/EAS for multiple player counts, could allow for a fair Arena competition where different player counts are allowed.
Under the current system players who only play 2 player matchups have a significant advantage over players who play with more than 2. This is because as the number of players goes up, the variance of a game goes up as well. Altering the 400 value based on number players compensates for the increased variance so that (on average) players in different player counts should be able to achieve similar ratings.
This would allow an arena mode competition to allow setups with multiple players. This would alleviate some of the wait time angst in arena mode.
2 Adjust the speed at which ratings change (K factor) depending on the length of the game. For EAS, make it a game length based variable between 20-50 (also a variable K value by games played wouldn’t be a bad thing)
Motivation: Too much variance in short generally luck based games, too much time required (too much time spent playing mismatched opponents for all players from weak to average to strong) in longer high skill games.
Right now EAS K factor is 40, Elo starts at 60 but drops to 20 after 20 games are played.
Some games take 2 minutes, others take 2 hours. Having the ratings move at the same rate per game means you can achieve a balanced rating in a few hours for some games (i.e. Backgammon, Can’t Stop, Reversi, 7 Wonders, Lost Cities), while for long games (Terra Mystica, Clans of Caledonia) it will take more than 100 hours. While longer games should take longer to reach a ‘true’ rating adjusting the K factor can be used to slightly mitigate the issue. You can’t make K factor too big otherwise the game to game
ratings swings would be too wild.
3 Normalize the ratings system so each game has roughly the same distribution of ratings by adjusting the 400 value based on the game luck factor.
Motivation: This would give a more realistic distribution of player skill from average through master in each game. Right now games with luck can’t have experts or masters (w/o matchup manipulation or a statistically improbable run of good luck anyway). Right now you could be a ‘perfect’ backgammon player but stall out at around a +100 rating because the luck factor in the game is large.
In a game like backgammon or can’t stop a strong player can expect a win rate of about 60% against average players. So this limits players ratings under the current system to about +100 from the base rating (a 100 rating point advantage indicates a 64% probability of winning). With the ratings volatility players can get on a lucky streak to get to +200 or rarely even +300, but will come back down to an average of around +100. Yet somehow players achieve +400-+500 ratings in these games...that can only be done by strategic opponent selection (or blatant cheating but we will ignore that for this argument). Basically you want to play only other high rated players and then get lucky by winning a few in a row to gain significant points. Arena mode should already mitigate this opponent selection tactic.
This idea isn’t as completely hashed out as the other 2 above, so I won’t offer concrete numbers, but there are a few ways to achieve this. The best is likely to increase the base 400 value for high luck games. A range from 400-900 based on luck factor (already games are ranked as 0-5 luck..could change 400 to 400 + 100*luck lvl). Combining this change with a change based on player number would however be more tricky, multiplying them together wouldn’t be great, it would likely be better to take the maximum of the two values. For this one to work luck ratings would have to be revisited b/c many of them aren’t very accurate (in checking about 8 games I saw at least two that were well off...kingdomino at a 4 and king’s guild at 3 both are definitely too high and lost cities at 2 is too low).• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v13
• Met welk onderdeel van de regels is geen rekening gehouden bij de BGA-versie?
Here is the current elo eas formula
For a Win:
RatingChange = K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((YourRating - OpponentRating)/400)))
For a Loss:
RatingChange = -K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((OpponentRating - YourRating)/400)))
K is a weight for each game (first 10 games is 60, next 10 is 40, after is 20 for Elo. All games are 40 for EAS)
P is a multiplier by number of players. P ~= 2/NumberPlayersInGame (more players decreases the amount gained or lost for each individual matchup, but increases the total amount of points at stake for a given game) (if you play with more players than the recommended number the P value actually becomes slightly lower than the above formula.
Proposed Changes
1 Adjust the 400 factor for number of players. Change it to 400*sqrt(numberOpponents).
Motivation: Equalize expected Elo/EAS for multiple player counts, could allow for a fair Arena competition where different player counts are allowed.
Under the current system players who only play 2 player matchups have a significant advantage over players who play with more than 2. This is because as the number of players goes up, the variance of a game goes up as well. Altering the 400 value based on number players compensates for the increased variance so that (on average) players in different player counts should be able to achieve similar ratings.
This would allow an arena mode competition to allow setups with multiple players. This would alleviate some of the wait time angst in arena mode.
2 Adjust the speed at which ratings change (K factor) depending on the length of the game. For EAS, make it a game length based variable between 20-50 (also a variable K value by games played wouldn’t be a bad thing)
Motivation: Too much variance in short generally luck based games, too much time required (too much time spent playing mismatched opponents for all players from weak to average to strong) in longer high skill games.
Right now EAS K factor is 40, Elo starts at 60 but drops to 20 after 20 games are played.
Some games take 2 minutes, others take 2 hours. Having the ratings move at the same rate per game means you can achieve a balanced rating in a few hours for some games (i.e. Backgammon, Can’t Stop, Reversi, 7 Wonders, Lost Cities), while for long games (Terra Mystica, Clans of Caledonia) it will take more than 100 hours. While longer games should take longer to reach a ‘true’ rating adjusting the K factor can be used to slightly mitigate the issue. You can’t make K factor too big otherwise the game to game
ratings swings would be too wild.
3 Normalize the ratings system so each game has roughly the same distribution of ratings by adjusting the 400 value based on the game luck factor.
Motivation: This would give a more realistic distribution of player skill from average through master in each game. Right now games with luck can’t have experts or masters (w/o matchup manipulation or a statistically improbable run of good luck anyway). Right now you could be a ‘perfect’ backgammon player but stall out at around a +100 rating because the luck factor in the game is large.
In a game like backgammon or can’t stop a strong player can expect a win rate of about 60% against average players. So this limits players ratings under the current system to about +100 from the base rating (a 100 rating point advantage indicates a 64% probability of winning). With the ratings volatility players can get on a lucky streak to get to +200 or rarely even +300, but will come back down to an average of around +100. Yet somehow players achieve +400-+500 ratings in these games...that can only be done by strategic opponent selection (or blatant cheating but we will ignore that for this argument). Basically you want to play only other high rated players and then get lucky by winning a few in a row to gain significant points. Arena mode should already mitigate this opponent selection tactic.
This idea isn’t as completely hashed out as the other 2 above, so I won’t offer concrete numbers, but there are a few ways to achieve this. The best is likely to increase the base 400 value for high luck games. A range from 400-900 based on luck factor (already games are ranked as 0-5 luck..could change 400 to 400 + 100*luck lvl). Combining this change with a change based on player number would however be more tricky, multiplying them together wouldn’t be great, it would likely be better to take the maximum of the two values. For this one to work luck ratings would have to be revisited b/c many of them aren’t very accurate (in checking about 8 games I saw at least two that were well off...kingdomino at a 4 and king’s guild at 3 both are definitely too high and lost cities at 2 is too low).• Is de inbreuk op de spelregels zichtbaar in de spelherhaling? Indien ja, bij welk zetnummer?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v13
• Welke spelactie wilde je uitvoeren?
Here is the current elo eas formula
For a Win:
RatingChange = K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((YourRating - OpponentRating)/400)))
For a Loss:
RatingChange = -K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((OpponentRating - YourRating)/400)))
K is a weight for each game (first 10 games is 60, next 10 is 40, after is 20 for Elo. All games are 40 for EAS)
P is a multiplier by number of players. P ~= 2/NumberPlayersInGame (more players decreases the amount gained or lost for each individual matchup, but increases the total amount of points at stake for a given game) (if you play with more players than the recommended number the P value actually becomes slightly lower than the above formula.
Proposed Changes
1 Adjust the 400 factor for number of players. Change it to 400*sqrt(numberOpponents).
Motivation: Equalize expected Elo/EAS for multiple player counts, could allow for a fair Arena competition where different player counts are allowed.
Under the current system players who only play 2 player matchups have a significant advantage over players who play with more than 2. This is because as the number of players goes up, the variance of a game goes up as well. Altering the 400 value based on number players compensates for the increased variance so that (on average) players in different player counts should be able to achieve similar ratings.
This would allow an arena mode competition to allow setups with multiple players. This would alleviate some of the wait time angst in arena mode.
2 Adjust the speed at which ratings change (K factor) depending on the length of the game. For EAS, make it a game length based variable between 20-50 (also a variable K value by games played wouldn’t be a bad thing)
Motivation: Too much variance in short generally luck based games, too much time required (too much time spent playing mismatched opponents for all players from weak to average to strong) in longer high skill games.
Right now EAS K factor is 40, Elo starts at 60 but drops to 20 after 20 games are played.
Some games take 2 minutes, others take 2 hours. Having the ratings move at the same rate per game means you can achieve a balanced rating in a few hours for some games (i.e. Backgammon, Can’t Stop, Reversi, 7 Wonders, Lost Cities), while for long games (Terra Mystica, Clans of Caledonia) it will take more than 100 hours. While longer games should take longer to reach a ‘true’ rating adjusting the K factor can be used to slightly mitigate the issue. You can’t make K factor too big otherwise the game to game
ratings swings would be too wild.
3 Normalize the ratings system so each game has roughly the same distribution of ratings by adjusting the 400 value based on the game luck factor.
Motivation: This would give a more realistic distribution of player skill from average through master in each game. Right now games with luck can’t have experts or masters (w/o matchup manipulation or a statistically improbable run of good luck anyway). Right now you could be a ‘perfect’ backgammon player but stall out at around a +100 rating because the luck factor in the game is large.
In a game like backgammon or can’t stop a strong player can expect a win rate of about 60% against average players. So this limits players ratings under the current system to about +100 from the base rating (a 100 rating point advantage indicates a 64% probability of winning). With the ratings volatility players can get on a lucky streak to get to +200 or rarely even +300, but will come back down to an average of around +100. Yet somehow players achieve +400-+500 ratings in these games...that can only be done by strategic opponent selection (or blatant cheating but we will ignore that for this argument). Basically you want to play only other high rated players and then get lucky by winning a few in a row to gain significant points. Arena mode should already mitigate this opponent selection tactic.
This idea isn’t as completely hashed out as the other 2 above, so I won’t offer concrete numbers, but there are a few ways to achieve this. The best is likely to increase the base 400 value for high luck games. A range from 400-900 based on luck factor (already games are ranked as 0-5 luck..could change 400 to 400 + 100*luck lvl). Combining this change with a change based on player number would however be more tricky, multiplying them together wouldn’t be great, it would likely be better to take the maximum of the two values. For this one to work luck ratings would have to be revisited b/c many of them aren’t very accurate (in checking about 8 games I saw at least two that were well off...kingdomino at a 4 and king’s guild at 3 both are definitely too high and lost cities at 2 is too low).• Wat probeerde je te doen om deze spelactie te laten optreden?
• Wat gebeurde er toen je dit probeerde te doen (foutboodschap, melding op de statusbalk van het spel, ...)?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v13
• In welke fase van het spel deed het probleem zich voor (wat was de huidige spelinstructie)?
Here is the current elo eas formula
For a Win:
RatingChange = K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((YourRating - OpponentRating)/400)))
For a Loss:
RatingChange = -K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((OpponentRating - YourRating)/400)))
K is a weight for each game (first 10 games is 60, next 10 is 40, after is 20 for Elo. All games are 40 for EAS)
P is a multiplier by number of players. P ~= 2/NumberPlayersInGame (more players decreases the amount gained or lost for each individual matchup, but increases the total amount of points at stake for a given game) (if you play with more players than the recommended number the P value actually becomes slightly lower than the above formula.
Proposed Changes
1 Adjust the 400 factor for number of players. Change it to 400*sqrt(numberOpponents).
Motivation: Equalize expected Elo/EAS for multiple player counts, could allow for a fair Arena competition where different player counts are allowed.
Under the current system players who only play 2 player matchups have a significant advantage over players who play with more than 2. This is because as the number of players goes up, the variance of a game goes up as well. Altering the 400 value based on number players compensates for the increased variance so that (on average) players in different player counts should be able to achieve similar ratings.
This would allow an arena mode competition to allow setups with multiple players. This would alleviate some of the wait time angst in arena mode.
2 Adjust the speed at which ratings change (K factor) depending on the length of the game. For EAS, make it a game length based variable between 20-50 (also a variable K value by games played wouldn’t be a bad thing)
Motivation: Too much variance in short generally luck based games, too much time required (too much time spent playing mismatched opponents for all players from weak to average to strong) in longer high skill games.
Right now EAS K factor is 40, Elo starts at 60 but drops to 20 after 20 games are played.
Some games take 2 minutes, others take 2 hours. Having the ratings move at the same rate per game means you can achieve a balanced rating in a few hours for some games (i.e. Backgammon, Can’t Stop, Reversi, 7 Wonders, Lost Cities), while for long games (Terra Mystica, Clans of Caledonia) it will take more than 100 hours. While longer games should take longer to reach a ‘true’ rating adjusting the K factor can be used to slightly mitigate the issue. You can’t make K factor too big otherwise the game to game
ratings swings would be too wild.
3 Normalize the ratings system so each game has roughly the same distribution of ratings by adjusting the 400 value based on the game luck factor.
Motivation: This would give a more realistic distribution of player skill from average through master in each game. Right now games with luck can’t have experts or masters (w/o matchup manipulation or a statistically improbable run of good luck anyway). Right now you could be a ‘perfect’ backgammon player but stall out at around a +100 rating because the luck factor in the game is large.
In a game like backgammon or can’t stop a strong player can expect a win rate of about 60% against average players. So this limits players ratings under the current system to about +100 from the base rating (a 100 rating point advantage indicates a 64% probability of winning). With the ratings volatility players can get on a lucky streak to get to +200 or rarely even +300, but will come back down to an average of around +100. Yet somehow players achieve +400-+500 ratings in these games...that can only be done by strategic opponent selection (or blatant cheating but we will ignore that for this argument). Basically you want to play only other high rated players and then get lucky by winning a few in a row to gain significant points. Arena mode should already mitigate this opponent selection tactic.
This idea isn’t as completely hashed out as the other 2 above, so I won’t offer concrete numbers, but there are a few ways to achieve this. The best is likely to increase the base 400 value for high luck games. A range from 400-900 based on luck factor (already games are ranked as 0-5 luck..could change 400 to 400 + 100*luck lvl). Combining this change with a change based on player number would however be more tricky, multiplying them together wouldn’t be great, it would likely be better to take the maximum of the two values. For this one to work luck ratings would have to be revisited b/c many of them aren’t very accurate (in checking about 8 games I saw at least two that were well off...kingdomino at a 4 and king’s guild at 3 both are definitely too high and lost cities at 2 is too low).• Wat gebeurde toen je deze spelactie probeerde (foutboodschap, melding op de statusbalk van het spel, ...)?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v13
• Beschrijf alsjeblieft het probleem met de beeldweergave. Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
Here is the current elo eas formula
For a Win:
RatingChange = K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((YourRating - OpponentRating)/400)))
For a Loss:
RatingChange = -K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((OpponentRating - YourRating)/400)))
K is a weight for each game (first 10 games is 60, next 10 is 40, after is 20 for Elo. All games are 40 for EAS)
P is a multiplier by number of players. P ~= 2/NumberPlayersInGame (more players decreases the amount gained or lost for each individual matchup, but increases the total amount of points at stake for a given game) (if you play with more players than the recommended number the P value actually becomes slightly lower than the above formula.
Proposed Changes
1 Adjust the 400 factor for number of players. Change it to 400*sqrt(numberOpponents).
Motivation: Equalize expected Elo/EAS for multiple player counts, could allow for a fair Arena competition where different player counts are allowed.
Under the current system players who only play 2 player matchups have a significant advantage over players who play with more than 2. This is because as the number of players goes up, the variance of a game goes up as well. Altering the 400 value based on number players compensates for the increased variance so that (on average) players in different player counts should be able to achieve similar ratings.
This would allow an arena mode competition to allow setups with multiple players. This would alleviate some of the wait time angst in arena mode.
2 Adjust the speed at which ratings change (K factor) depending on the length of the game. For EAS, make it a game length based variable between 20-50 (also a variable K value by games played wouldn’t be a bad thing)
Motivation: Too much variance in short generally luck based games, too much time required (too much time spent playing mismatched opponents for all players from weak to average to strong) in longer high skill games.
Right now EAS K factor is 40, Elo starts at 60 but drops to 20 after 20 games are played.
Some games take 2 minutes, others take 2 hours. Having the ratings move at the same rate per game means you can achieve a balanced rating in a few hours for some games (i.e. Backgammon, Can’t Stop, Reversi, 7 Wonders, Lost Cities), while for long games (Terra Mystica, Clans of Caledonia) it will take more than 100 hours. While longer games should take longer to reach a ‘true’ rating adjusting the K factor can be used to slightly mitigate the issue. You can’t make K factor too big otherwise the game to game
ratings swings would be too wild.
3 Normalize the ratings system so each game has roughly the same distribution of ratings by adjusting the 400 value based on the game luck factor.
Motivation: This would give a more realistic distribution of player skill from average through master in each game. Right now games with luck can’t have experts or masters (w/o matchup manipulation or a statistically improbable run of good luck anyway). Right now you could be a ‘perfect’ backgammon player but stall out at around a +100 rating because the luck factor in the game is large.
In a game like backgammon or can’t stop a strong player can expect a win rate of about 60% against average players. So this limits players ratings under the current system to about +100 from the base rating (a 100 rating point advantage indicates a 64% probability of winning). With the ratings volatility players can get on a lucky streak to get to +200 or rarely even +300, but will come back down to an average of around +100. Yet somehow players achieve +400-+500 ratings in these games...that can only be done by strategic opponent selection (or blatant cheating but we will ignore that for this argument). Basically you want to play only other high rated players and then get lucky by winning a few in a row to gain significant points. Arena mode should already mitigate this opponent selection tactic.
This idea isn’t as completely hashed out as the other 2 above, so I won’t offer concrete numbers, but there are a few ways to achieve this. The best is likely to increase the base 400 value for high luck games. A range from 400-900 based on luck factor (already games are ranked as 0-5 luck..could change 400 to 400 + 100*luck lvl). Combining this change with a change based on player number would however be more tricky, multiplying them together wouldn’t be great, it would likely be better to take the maximum of the two values. For this one to work luck ratings would have to be revisited b/c many of them aren’t very accurate (in checking about 8 games I saw at least two that were well off...kingdomino at a 4 and king’s guild at 3 both are definitely too high and lost cities at 2 is too low).• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v13
• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de tekst die in het Engels wordt getoond in plaats van in jouw taal. Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
Here is the current elo eas formula
For a Win:
RatingChange = K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((YourRating - OpponentRating)/400)))
For a Loss:
RatingChange = -K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((OpponentRating - YourRating)/400)))
K is a weight for each game (first 10 games is 60, next 10 is 40, after is 20 for Elo. All games are 40 for EAS)
P is a multiplier by number of players. P ~= 2/NumberPlayersInGame (more players decreases the amount gained or lost for each individual matchup, but increases the total amount of points at stake for a given game) (if you play with more players than the recommended number the P value actually becomes slightly lower than the above formula.
Proposed Changes
1 Adjust the 400 factor for number of players. Change it to 400*sqrt(numberOpponents).
Motivation: Equalize expected Elo/EAS for multiple player counts, could allow for a fair Arena competition where different player counts are allowed.
Under the current system players who only play 2 player matchups have a significant advantage over players who play with more than 2. This is because as the number of players goes up, the variance of a game goes up as well. Altering the 400 value based on number players compensates for the increased variance so that (on average) players in different player counts should be able to achieve similar ratings.
This would allow an arena mode competition to allow setups with multiple players. This would alleviate some of the wait time angst in arena mode.
2 Adjust the speed at which ratings change (K factor) depending on the length of the game. For EAS, make it a game length based variable between 20-50 (also a variable K value by games played wouldn’t be a bad thing)
Motivation: Too much variance in short generally luck based games, too much time required (too much time spent playing mismatched opponents for all players from weak to average to strong) in longer high skill games.
Right now EAS K factor is 40, Elo starts at 60 but drops to 20 after 20 games are played.
Some games take 2 minutes, others take 2 hours. Having the ratings move at the same rate per game means you can achieve a balanced rating in a few hours for some games (i.e. Backgammon, Can’t Stop, Reversi, 7 Wonders, Lost Cities), while for long games (Terra Mystica, Clans of Caledonia) it will take more than 100 hours. While longer games should take longer to reach a ‘true’ rating adjusting the K factor can be used to slightly mitigate the issue. You can’t make K factor too big otherwise the game to game
ratings swings would be too wild.
3 Normalize the ratings system so each game has roughly the same distribution of ratings by adjusting the 400 value based on the game luck factor.
Motivation: This would give a more realistic distribution of player skill from average through master in each game. Right now games with luck can’t have experts or masters (w/o matchup manipulation or a statistically improbable run of good luck anyway). Right now you could be a ‘perfect’ backgammon player but stall out at around a +100 rating because the luck factor in the game is large.
In a game like backgammon or can’t stop a strong player can expect a win rate of about 60% against average players. So this limits players ratings under the current system to about +100 from the base rating (a 100 rating point advantage indicates a 64% probability of winning). With the ratings volatility players can get on a lucky streak to get to +200 or rarely even +300, but will come back down to an average of around +100. Yet somehow players achieve +400-+500 ratings in these games...that can only be done by strategic opponent selection (or blatant cheating but we will ignore that for this argument). Basically you want to play only other high rated players and then get lucky by winning a few in a row to gain significant points. Arena mode should already mitigate this opponent selection tactic.
This idea isn’t as completely hashed out as the other 2 above, so I won’t offer concrete numbers, but there are a few ways to achieve this. The best is likely to increase the base 400 value for high luck games. A range from 400-900 based on luck factor (already games are ranked as 0-5 luck..could change 400 to 400 + 100*luck lvl). Combining this change with a change based on player number would however be more tricky, multiplying them together wouldn’t be great, it would likely be better to take the maximum of the two values. For this one to work luck ratings would have to be revisited b/c many of them aren’t very accurate (in checking about 8 games I saw at least two that were well off...kingdomino at a 4 and king’s guild at 3 both are definitely too high and lost cities at 2 is too low).• Is deze tekst beschikbaar in het vertaalsysteem? Zo ja, is deze meer dan 24 uur geleden vertaald?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v13
• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.
Here is the current elo eas formula
For a Win:
RatingChange = K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((YourRating - OpponentRating)/400)))
For a Loss:
RatingChange = -K*P/(1 + 10 ^ ((OpponentRating - YourRating)/400)))
K is a weight for each game (first 10 games is 60, next 10 is 40, after is 20 for Elo. All games are 40 for EAS)
P is a multiplier by number of players. P ~= 2/NumberPlayersInGame (more players decreases the amount gained or lost for each individual matchup, but increases the total amount of points at stake for a given game) (if you play with more players than the recommended number the P value actually becomes slightly lower than the above formula.
Proposed Changes
1 Adjust the 400 factor for number of players. Change it to 400*sqrt(numberOpponents).
Motivation: Equalize expected Elo/EAS for multiple player counts, could allow for a fair Arena competition where different player counts are allowed.
Under the current system players who only play 2 player matchups have a significant advantage over players who play with more than 2. This is because as the number of players goes up, the variance of a game goes up as well. Altering the 400 value based on number players compensates for the increased variance so that (on average) players in different player counts should be able to achieve similar ratings.
This would allow an arena mode competition to allow setups with multiple players. This would alleviate some of the wait time angst in arena mode.
2 Adjust the speed at which ratings change (K factor) depending on the length of the game. For EAS, make it a game length based variable between 20-50 (also a variable K value by games played wouldn’t be a bad thing)
Motivation: Too much variance in short generally luck based games, too much time required (too much time spent playing mismatched opponents for all players from weak to average to strong) in longer high skill games.
Right now EAS K factor is 40, Elo starts at 60 but drops to 20 after 20 games are played.
Some games take 2 minutes, others take 2 hours. Having the ratings move at the same rate per game means you can achieve a balanced rating in a few hours for some games (i.e. Backgammon, Can’t Stop, Reversi, 7 Wonders, Lost Cities), while for long games (Terra Mystica, Clans of Caledonia) it will take more than 100 hours. While longer games should take longer to reach a ‘true’ rating adjusting the K factor can be used to slightly mitigate the issue. You can’t make K factor too big otherwise the game to game
ratings swings would be too wild.
3 Normalize the ratings system so each game has roughly the same distribution of ratings by adjusting the 400 value based on the game luck factor.
Motivation: This would give a more realistic distribution of player skill from average through master in each game. Right now games with luck can’t have experts or masters (w/o matchup manipulation or a statistically improbable run of good luck anyway). Right now you could be a ‘perfect’ backgammon player but stall out at around a +100 rating because the luck factor in the game is large.
In a game like backgammon or can’t stop a strong player can expect a win rate of about 60% against average players. So this limits players ratings under the current system to about +100 from the base rating (a 100 rating point advantage indicates a 64% probability of winning). With the ratings volatility players can get on a lucky streak to get to +200 or rarely even +300, but will come back down to an average of around +100. Yet somehow players achieve +400-+500 ratings in these games...that can only be done by strategic opponent selection (or blatant cheating but we will ignore that for this argument). Basically you want to play only other high rated players and then get lucky by winning a few in a row to gain significant points. Arena mode should already mitigate this opponent selection tactic.
This idea isn’t as completely hashed out as the other 2 above, so I won’t offer concrete numbers, but there are a few ways to achieve this. The best is likely to increase the base 400 value for high luck games. A range from 400-900 based on luck factor (already games are ranked as 0-5 luck..could change 400 to 400 + 100*luck lvl). Combining this change with a change based on player number would however be more tricky, multiplying them together wouldn’t be great, it would likely be better to take the maximum of the two values. For this one to work luck ratings would have to be revisited b/c many of them aren’t very accurate (in checking about 8 games I saw at least two that were well off...kingdomino at a 4 and king’s guild at 3 both are definitely too high and lost cities at 2 is too low).• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v13
Rapportgeschiedenis
This actually exacerbates issues with how long it takes to reach an accurate EAS for long multiplayer games.
Currently, it is higher for people who finish in the middle of the pack and the P factor can even be different for the player who finish 1st than for the player who finish last. (see boardgamearena.com/bug?id=46582 )
when winning against 3 stronger players at once, elo-points are devided with 3. --> what for?
isn't that much more dificult that winning against one opponent?
see table 216760302
A better answer is to use a different curve altogether, or at least scale the asymptote away from 100%, preferably based on game data (which should be easy to extract).
One solution is to decrease the K factor for luck-based games. Then ratings would be more stable.
A better solution is to change the probability distribution for luck-based games. ELO is designed for a game like chess, where a casual player would have zero chance against a grandmaster. A rating difference of 400 points means a 90% chance of winning. A rating difference of 800 means a 99% chance of winning. There are games here where the weaker player always has a 25% chance of winning.
For example, the probability distribution could be
chance of winning = (your rating) / (your rating + opponent's rating)
using a minimum value of 100 for people who just started playing a game.
boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29584
I also provided there a few links to related papers for those interested in the maths.
Dit rapport aanvullen
- Andere tafel ID / zet ID
- Loste F5 het probleem op?
- Kwam het probleem meerdere keren voor? Altijd? Willekeurig?
- Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.