Forums

A clear example of why the FFA rating system should change

Sort:
LosChess
LosChess
Show your flair!
Jun 23, 2022
0
#41

After much discussion today, I think the best system is 2nd = 3rd.  This system encourages players to play for first in the 3-player stage since 2nd and 3rd don't gain or lose that much.

+2 -.5 -.5 -1   Keeps the Solo format, while 4th is punished slightly more. 

+2 0 0 -2 slight variation from the old system, so ratings don't become so inflated. 

HSCCCB
HSCCCB
Show your flair!
Jun 23, 2022
0
#42
martinaxo wrote:
jessezafirakos escribió:
HSCCCalebBrown wrote:

The issue I see with that is it benificial to play more. The weak player who plays four times a day is as high rated as the strong player who plays once a day. Is it mathmaticaly possible for each game to have a rating fee?

I assumed neo's +4 +2 +2 +1 post was a joke. If players have a "rating fee" to participate in a game, it's the same as the other systems where 4th (or 3rd/4th) lose rating.


it's definitely a joke , you're not going to take that seriously!

yea, i thought so, then I was like, hey what if we do this... 

You could do it by expected value, but then it turns into a solo system again

anyway 

happy.png

Radon
Radon
Show your flair!
Jun 23, 2022
0
#43

I think 2 -0.2 -0.2 -1.6 is likely the best solution to start from (or 1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.8 even better but apparently people dont like having to work hard for rating to change) imo.

icy
CM icy
Jun 23, 2022
0
#44
TheCheesePhoenix wrote:

 so if my opinion is bad or just dumb you may disregard it.

Everyone will, no worries

ChessMasterGS
ChessMasterGS
Show your flair!
Jun 23, 2022
0
#45

If 3rd lost more than 4th then the game is not 4PC and we can ahead and make 1st place lose 100 points per game. What is the logic, Cheese?

Indipendenza
Indipendenza
Show your flair!
Jun 24, 2022
0
#46
LosChessquire wrote:

After much discussion today, I think the best system is 2nd = 3rd.  This system encourages players to play for first in the 3-player stage since 2nd and 3rd don't gain or lose that much.

+2 -.5 -.5 -1   Keeps the Solo format, while 4th is punished slightly more. 

+2 0 0 -2 slight variation from the old system, so ratings don't become so inflated. 

 

What I don't like a lot with 2nd=3rd (despite of its obvious advantages indeed!), that could make the 2nd stage longer, the players not wanting to take risks. I still beieve the 2nd should have more, BUT shouldn't gain rating (and it shouldn't be 0 neither, I explained why above). -0.5 or even -1 is Ok for the 2nd I think, and -1 or -1.5 for the third.

I definitely prefer +3 -0.5 -1 -1.5 or +4.5 -1 -1.5 -2.

Indipendenza
Indipendenza
Show your flair!
Jun 24, 2022
0
#47
TheCheesePhoenix wrote:

Honestly, 3rd should lose more than 4th, since more often than not (at least at the higher levels) it isn't 4th's place for losing (teaming) but it is the 3rd player's incompetence that makes them lose. I'd also say that 2nd doesn't deserve to gain rating since they got 2nd but at least they made it there, so an optimal ratio based on these criteria is +3 0 -2 -1, at least in my opinion. 

 

In fact I totally agree with the assertions, but not with the proposal, that would have perverse effects, players who (once they understand it's over) would abandon in order to be 4th and not 3rd, etc. We can't allow that.

What I definitely agree with, it's the fact that very often you're 4th without having done anything wrong. But as we all play a lot, probably it's not a big issue, we're 4th from time to time, sh$t happens, it's like that. The only real way to address the issue would be 3rd=4th, and many here on the forum would not agree. 

Indipendenza
Indipendenza
Show your flair!
Jun 24, 2022
0
#48

(I would like to remind here in this thread my very old proposal - sorry, being lazy I can't find it, it was around 2018/2019 - what if, in order to close once for all this discussion, we gave the rating changes as per final points result of the game, adjusted per players' initial ratings of course? The ONLY perverse effect I see is that it could encourage longer games, the winner wanting to eat as much as possible before mating. But it could be addressed rather easily: for instance the points obtained by the winner once there are only 2 players left are not taken into account, he only has +20 for the mate, regardless).