Ideally, chess.com two player ratings, FFA, and Teams ratings should be similar, where a 2000 blitz player, I would say, has gained the same amount of skill as a 2000 FFA player or a 2000 Teams player.
Functionally, this is impossible to line up completely, but we can still try to move ffa ratings to a point where FFA ratings seem to at least vaguely parallel two player ratings.
Right now, FFA ratings start at 1500, while normal ratings (typically) start at 800 or 600 or something like that. From a logical perspective, I don't think this discrepancy is needed, as it inflates all ffa ratings far above where they should be. I propose reducing all ratings by 700 points and starting at 800, which I think is much closer to similar skill in normal chess.
For example, a 1500 would be an 800, 2000 a 1300, 2400, a 1700, and a 3000 a 2300. While not perfect, I think this makes a lot more sense.
Similarly, I believe FFA ratings are above Teams ratings by about 500 points, give or take. I think it should be considered to make their ratings line up more as well.
The argument against this is that the current rating system looks better. It is cooler to be a 2000 than a 1300, yes. But I think under the current rating system, players either ignore the current rating tiers versus 2 player chess, understanding they are completely incomparable, or are misled by their rating, neither of which are desirable. While reducing ratings by 700 may make ratings less attractive, I think having a rating system that reflects something that is actually somewhat comparable with regular chess ratings is more desirable in the long run.
Thanks for considering,
Caleb