Why you might want to check out your opponent's ELO score!

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

I recently ended a Modern Campaigns game because I was getting the "stuffing" beat out of me!

My NATO opponent played a perfect game and was the higher skilled player. Every Warsaw Pact move was brilliantly countered by my opponent and I was kept off balance from Turn #1. A NATO armor counterattack on the Warsaw Pact left flank late in the battle sealed the victory. I gave up and surrendered with 4 turns left in our game.

As I was recording my Major Loss, I reviewed our ELO scores;

2157 - Opponent's ELO Score

1938 - My ELO Score

-------


219 Difference


Here's what Wikipedia states on the ELO Rating System:

"The difference in the ratings between two players serves as a predictor of the outcome of a match. Two players with equal ratings who play against each other are expected to score an equal number of wins. A player whose rating is 100 points greater than their opponent's is expected to score 64%; if the difference is 200 points, then the expected score for the stronger player is 76%."

Based on our ELO scores, I was at a 76% disadvantage... or stated another way... there was a 76% probability that I would lose the MC scenario against this opponent!   

I was definitely in this MC match!

The ELO score difference was "spot on" as a predictor of which player eventually won this match.

So... lesson learned here!  

In my future matches I will review my opponent's ELO scores more carefully and look to play opponents that are equal in ELO scores to mine (ideal) or at least play against opponents who's ELO scores are within 100 points of mine.  

For me, it's no fun to play vastly superior skilled opponents and subsequently getting beaten into a pulp!

Word to the wise gents... You "might" want to review how your ELO scores stack up against potential opponents ratings BEFORE you accept a game challenge! 

[Al]

I have a lowly ELO score of 1900.  Most, if not all, of my opponents have higher score which is why I guess I usually lose.

[Landser34]

Sometimes it is not the player it is the scenario favors one side or the other when I 1st started playing  there were and still guys that I play which ever side I play cant beat them.

[ComradeP]

Historical breakthrough scenarios tend to favour the attacker, as they did after all break through, so you might not even realistically be able to get a draw there.

There are also scenarios where the turn limit can make or break your game more than a player's skill, either because you have a very limited number of turns to achieve your objectives or because you have so many turns that the defender is likely to be overwhelmed.

I've not played against all that many different people, but all had their own playstyle and degrees of understanding of the system. There were a few situations where I felt I was at an advantage due to having played more battles or more appreciation of the potential options, but I tend to prefer scenarios that both sides can win so the difference wasn't necessarily pronounced.

[Mr Grumpy]

I found the best way to learn the system was to play players who were more experienced/talented than myself and excepted that I would suffer a number of losses early on, but each game I learnt a little more and became more difficult to beat, some players were open about how I could improve my play and some played their cards very close to their chest but either way I took something from each game.

It is correct that there are some scenarios that are near impossible to win, but it does come as a shock when you get beaten in a scenario you believe to be unbalanced and then get beaten badly when you change sides!!

Even then seeing the more skilled way your opponent handled the forces that you had just commanded can tell you a massive amount about where you are going wrong and how you might improve.

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

There are "lessons learned" by playing more experienced and skilled opponents - As Darren (Mr. Grumpy) states, I try to take some tactical "nuggets" from each game I play too. 

However, the ELO ratings don't lie!

Looking at 4 recent opponents' ELO ratings who scored either a Minor or Major Victory over me:

2157 (Opponent 1)
2002 (Opponent 2)
2094 (Opponent 3)
2054 (Opponent 4)

and compared to my ELO --> 1938

Difference - Opponents versus my ELO ratings:

219 Opponent 1 (76% of losing the game)
64   Opponent 2 (Ok. Maybe I should have won this one!)
156 Opponent 3 (64% of losing the game)
116 Opponent 4 (64% of losing the game)

Anyway, interesting to run the numbers!

[Mr Grumpy]

Indeed, the ELO feature is an interesting tool and does give a alternate slant on players performance over just ladder points scored and win/loss %.

[Compass Rose]

Back when was a newbie and trying to learn to play a JTS/HPS series that was new to me, I would try to locate opponents who were not high the the ELO "Totem Pole".  Sometimes this worked, other times I got schooled and I got schooled bad.  However, as long as you pick up something new each game, you can learn from playing a highly rated opponent.



These days I currently have zero PBEM games going due to real life however, when I do find some time to play, I highly value my opponents friendship and the enjoyment I get when playing against them, more than I do their ELO score. 

Now, the only time I look at someone's ELO is when I am doing the End-of-Year Awards.

[Pat the wolf]

Gentlemen,

We learn a lot of players stronger.
I had won a Sicily campaign with the refueling option.
I just lost on this same campaign without the option to refuel against the same opponent.
I learned a lot and I always keep the same pleasure.
I agree with Compass Rose the fun of the game and the friendliness with the opponent.

Regards,

Pat