Arena Rankings

I have seen a lot of discussion on how arena tournaments encourage players to play more games and lower quality games, and eg resign a game where in a different format the player might fight for a draw.

What about changing the ranking of players such that it is based on a combination of performance rating and # games played? In combination with eliminating berserk and removing extra points based on winning streaks, every game would be taken seriously and there is only a marginal incentive to play more games.
The reason for # games to be included as a factor is so that a player does not pause after winning 1 game against a highly rated opponent.

One difference from current arena is that if a player is doing badly in the beginning of the tournament, he may drop out. But that is the same as in Swiss tournaments - players drop out all the time after bad starts.

I love streaks. It makes it fun. If you don’t like it, play in a Swiss tourney instead.

And anyway, I like lichess the way it is. I don’t play low quality chess. The reason being is that 1. There are STREAKS high will help you get more points, and because if you play low quality, the joke’s kind of on you because we are here to improve, not to come first place.

Same issue dont like the Arena system that much, but hey swiss tournament is here now @krxou

I do like the Arena system quite a bit and the issue is not streaks, I just mentioned that as another possible improvement. The main point is the RANKINGS. IMO rankings should be based on a combination of performance rating and points scored, because it would seem to ameliorate the well-described drawbacks.

Then make it in Swiss. The tiebreaker is similar to what you are talking about. You can always ask lichess for a different tournament style