A new setup proposal: BYG switch.

I agree. There are many things where it would have been better if it didn't change. Changing things was a joke move. There is a reason we are looking for something better than this new position.

#4pc is a joke.

I agree that making a number of changes at once was what drove the players away the most.  But if 2 changes didn't work, the best thing to do is to undo those changes. 

The New Standard wasn't well-received because years of theory got thrown out the window overnight, for a setup that had its own set of flaws and wasn't well received during the Month long Arena, yet it was implemented as the New Standard anyway. 

In Omatamix all players have the same setup, ALL Queens are pointing at the Kings which leads to many forcing moves in the opening, and lacks variety when you play with different colors.  

I disagree that changing the setup or something else won't make people happy.  What made us all unhappy was changing 2 things we loved in the first place.  In this thread, you can see that people preferred Old Standard:

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/what-was-wrong-with-old-standard

There was perfection in the imperfection of Old Standard.  All players didn't have the same setup, which led to a variety of openings and interesting games, it's the setup the players were used to for years.  I've only been playing this game for just over a year, but it was pretty upsetting that all the theory and studies I'd done were no longer relevant.  I then had to learn a new position I had almost no interest in, but I hung in there because I love this game, while others simply left.  I wasn't alone in this line of thinking, 74 Players participated in this poll. 
41,9%  prefer Bsrti
44,6% prefer OG
13,5% prefer Omatamix

If New Standard wasn't good enough for the Solo Championships, then it's not good enough to be the regular starting position. 

The bigger factors were the disconnections, the Multi-Lobby, and the SFA system.  Since the disconnections are fixed now, and there's an improved Multi-Lobby system in the works, turning FFA into Solo was an unnecessary change, which likely had the biggest impact on players leaving. 

55 Players participated in the Rating System Poll
- 72,7% prefer FFA in essence
- 27,3% prefer SOLO

The Solo system is for elite players, and Elite players make up less than 1% of the FFA player base.  The rest of us along with Elite players preferred FFA.  On March 26, I pointed out how all these changes were driving players away, and here we are 3 months later. 

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/why-is-sfa-standard-now

You can EASILY bring the player base back by changing the starting position to Old Standard or BSRTI, and implementing the FFA system we were all accustomed to.  By Implementing those 2 changes, I guarantee you'll have players returning in droves.  

A lot of the top players have given detailed feedback already, and they have pointed out what was wrong with the changes and exactly what they want:

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/opinion-wanted-heres-mine

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/the-harsh-reality-of-these-changes

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/why-the-ffa-rating-system-should-change

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/my-thoughs-to-all-the-discussions-about-setup-and-rating-empty-k3

Here's another post with ideas on how to save 4 PC

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/one-change-might-be-all-we-need-and-its-probably-the-hardest-one

I know it must be overwhelming to have all this feedback, take into account different opinions and then make decisions that satisfy all, but I'm pretty sure the majority of players were not asking for a Solo system in place of FFA and to change the starting position to Omatamix. 

1) I fully agree with Justin, the new set-up increases your dependence on your opp' when you're G, and in addition what I personally hate, you have much less moves available for your openings. This lack of variety is an obvious flaw.

2) as for the unbalance of the Old Standard. I do NOT think it is relevant to compare stats and use engines: for instance the stats showed that to be G was bad, but I'm sure that if you look into the stats for the best players, you'll see that they do not fail with G much more than with other colours. Why? Because the stats are done for averages, whereas the best players precisely knew how to play which colour.

3) from the 16 positions available, I do not think we have to find "the most balanced" (because if the most balanced obliges you to the same opening every time, that would make the game pretty boring and nobody will like it). We should rather aim at finding the set-up that:

- allows a variety of moves,

- doesn't let RY (or BG) eliminate one of the BG (or RY) easily just because the other player doesn't play correctly. It's a very important point: ANY set-up, even the most balanced one, is bad if during your first 10 moves you can die without having done ANYTHING wrong just because you have someone incompetent in front,

- ideally offers at least some basic symmetry (which eliminates already half of the set-ups).

I believe that for all these reasons the Old Standard was a good compromise.

(...but: I am fully open to the idea that ALL 16 SET-UPS could/should be tested by the players; and I even proposed once a crazy idea to let the server decide randomly every time, or at least open this possibility: a player who launches the game decides if it's Oma, Old Standard, BRSTI or whatever; or RANDOM, let's have fun: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/a-radical-proposal-about-the-set-up).

Indie, just because a very strong player suffers less as green, doesn't make it less balanced, or less tragic, and won't stop others from aborting. (a stronger player will win in 2pc as black, maybe even with a piece handicap. doesn't make it more fun or fairer in even lineups.)

I remember you saying here in the forum that it was a very good point, 50% higher chance of taking 4th for b and g. We increased the abort punishments to stop players from aborting, but we thought, that that really isn't a proper or good solution, as it doesn't really fix the problem.

I can accept when players say, it's not worth it, we'd rather have high abort punishments and high loss rates for blue and green. But I can't accept that many players, including some of the very best and most prominent ones, just flat out deny the problem ever existed, as if admins decided to change the setup for no good reason.

Isn't it a bigger problem that instead of getting aborted, those games are no longer being started in the first place?

In my opinion we should choose the best starting position rather than do a worse starting position that will bring back some players. Long term, the players we gain from putting forth our best product should eclipse the amount of players we'd bring back with old standard.

In other words, long term, the best starting starting postion is the best for 4pc

Only if you think about short term.

So for example, say 4PC were a new game, with no history, nobody ever played it before. Now we were to find the best starting position. A serious analysis would reveal that old standard is def not best. Then everybody would get used to some setup.
It's a matter of time for people to get used to something new or different. And I can't imagine players who truly love this game, losing their love for it just because a couple opening moves they are used to are now lost. It's still literally 99% the same game. Sure they might be upset for a while.
Over time players will get used to pretty much whatever you throw at them, and then defend it as if it's always been that way.

And as mentioned before, the loss of players is not only because of the setup. A large part was due to connection troubles, a large part was due to FFA being Solo. Add that Summer is low time.

So let me ask in return, do you think if we change it back to old standard now, everybody will come back? I think most will come back in a couple months, come winter, if the change the setup or not.
I'm not saying we should or shouldn't change it, I'm just saying things aren't a clear cut as many are trying to make us believe. And going back might not achieve what many hope it would.
It's not an easy decision to make, either way.

Since @YouTube4playerChess has with great emotion blocked me for objecting to their 3 on 1 chess monstrosity, I'll just say it here:

1. There is probably 0 possibility of returning to the old server
2. Chess.com staff (not @spacebar, who is simply a developer) can be to blame for many parts of the problem, including rating ranges, the former navbar problems, etc.
3. Opening theory can be relearned, this has been the case for Omatamix (in fact, it is EASIER to play Omatamix as it has only 3 or so easy lines and some other higher-level ones). While (planning to have) repetitive change to the position is not good for any game, and something needs to be figured out, that's the truth.

imagine saying that the position being boring is a good thing

I'm not saying it's a good thing. I would rather play at championship level with Old Standard than with Omatamix, but Omatamix is miles easier to learn.

[removed some posts for being 100% off-topic]

Exactly, therefore the vision and ultimate goal is to ideally implement what is best for the 4PC.

That is why we are working on its final definition, in which you are also part of this.

Because 4PC is all of us.

Well put.  A couple things to add on:

1) You mentioned "players who truly love this game," and how you don't believe that changes to say, the starting position, would ultimately lead them to abandon the game.  Two problems with this. 

First, it clearly has put some of those players off.  Many high level players who love this game have quit or are inactive in both FFA and Teams.  As you mentioned, you can't only put this down to the starting position, as there have been multiple concurrent changes.  But especially in Teams, where the only significant change besides the interface was the starting setup, a lot of the top players (some publicly, others quietly) have left. FFA is more complicated because there was the other significant change of the rating system.  Yet even there, players like Radon have voiced publicly the starting position as a reason for their inactivity.   

Second, the playerbase is not only people who "truly love the game."  Most of those players are less skilled, less vocal about their opinion, and don't play as much as others do.  Yet we have seen a decrease in overall activity since the changes.  Once again, this is attributable to multiple things, and you can't only point to the starting position as a reason.  Yet it would be delusional to assume that the starting position doesn't matter or affect them either.  As this group of players are simultaneously less active and less vocal, once they leave, they don't come back.  They don't care to work to change what should be fixed, because they simply don't care as much as others do.  They'll find something else to spend time on.  

2) I also take issue with simplifying the effects of the change in starting position to "a couple opening moves are now lost."  The change in starting position affects a lot more than the body of opening theory, and changing the opening affects a lot more than having to learn a couple new moves.  In FFA, the opening in general is not as important as Teams.  Since FFA is almost exclusively decided in the three player stage, most players in FFA focus on safety and pawn structure in the opening over activity, which is paramount in Teams.  This leads to a lower standard of precision in FFA which leads to almost no opening body.  Yet the change in the starting position still affects FFA.  This is because other factors, such as typical structures that arise and survivability for green, also change with the starting position.  In Teams, of course, the change in starting position affects a lot more.  There is a noticeable lack of variety in opening structures, as well as a significant increase in dry symmetrical positions.  Regardless of the actual evaluation, the change in starting position has led to play which many see as considerably less enjoyable to play.  

just change it back to the old. enough already

Yeah we've had enough. All this has done is cause 4pc more problems.

Yes of course I agree with the new type it will make our game more colorful, and increase logical thinking.

BRUH yall just confusing me with all these options... and im playing this for a while now... IMAGINE NEW PPL JOINING how confused they will be......!!!!!!!!! JUST KEEP THINGS HOW THEY WHERE BE4 THE VARIANT CHANGE........ back to everything how it was !!!! so also that 4pc is not a variant... so when i type google 4player chess it doesnt show me variants... i feel that 4pc can get real big real fast but yall just keep changing things........ i mean imagine i wanna stream and post on youtube.... mybe next month every position changes again so my whole effort on the youtube vid basically for nothing..... im just saying yall do what u want but this is my opinion in the matter and one of the reasons im not playing that much anymore.    ( i havent red anything of the above) so excuse if i said anything out of context but i just see the opportunity to share my thoughts and mybe more ppls thoughts.... Greetings KIDBUUJOHAN AKA XCLUSIVEJOHAN  much love to all of the 4pc goats very kind all of them and loving the game and specially luke with all hes effort and work on 4pc .... adios cya in thaaaaa futaaaaaah <3

I understand; but still, it's very clear that the imbalance affects very differently as per levels. I am sure that under let's say 2200 the players don't really feel it's unbalanced, because they will lose so often simply because of their own blunders and mistakes and time pressure or whatever, that this imbalance is NOT OBVIOUS AT ALL to them. And the players above maybe 2600 will not care neither. So it's mainly about 500 (?) players who are in between. To have changed because of them looks rather clumsy.

In addition: IF the only real problem with the old standard was the G, NP, it's very very easy to address. Calculate correctly the chances, and give to G from start the necessary amount of points (let's say, 4,37, you'll find the correct number). That would rebalance. That's economy.

Yes, true, it's not crystal clear. And nobody knows. There were multiple factors, etc.

I believe that a) the structure of the new website and b) the set-up were the two main factors, aggravated a lot by c) bad new server stability. I do not think that the rating calculation impacted that much.

Anyway, my VERY STRONG suggestion is a) to try to avoid continuous changes (the rules, the game set-up, the structure should be much more stable), and b) when some new idea appears, it should first be discussed really well (even if the final decision would anyway have to be taken by the admins) and implemented ALONE, with no more multiple changes in the same time.