another proposal

I reckon that we should make all games with a difference in rating of more than 200 casual automatically. I mean, you shouldn't be able to join a rated game if there is a player in it with a rating which is higher/lower than yours (in this timing/format).

That would have many positive consequences (and just one negative one):

- some games would become much less time-waste-for-all because we would see much less situations where there are 3 serious players with a 4th one who makes only blunders and ruins the game for his opp (who finishes 3rd and often even 4th trying to help/save his silly opp) and creates an undue advantage for their flanks,

- there would be MUCH LESS FARMING,

- there wouldn't be so much frustration for strong players when they create situations that their much weaker opps don't see, etc.,

- for weaker players there would be much less unpleasant situations where they lose just because they play with inappropriate partners (I mean the game is supposed to be fun and it's seldom fun to be a 1800 player used to 1800 level partners, in a game with 3 2150-2400 players for instance),

- even more importantly, the ratings would reflect much more accurately the real strength of all players, avoiding inflated ratings obtained thanks to farming,

- that would make games even more coherent, with more-or-less same level players playing together at their current level. The overall experience for us all would become more positive and less frustrating sometimes.

The ONLY negative consequence that I see would be that there would be sometimes more difficulties to get a game. 5 min. vs. 20 sec. for example.

What do you think?

You should explore the available settings for the ratings of your opponents, this already exists.

agreed with the arguments you make indi, thats why mattedmonds has a good point.

?????

What do you mean, Mattedmonds? I know that most games have a range (do you mean that?). But a) it's not the case of all (and I would like it to be a general rule) and b) the range is very often quite large, not just 400 pts as suggested.

The thing is the playerbase is simply too small for now to be too nitpicky about matchups. If the playerbase increases, the matchups become more natural and rating-appropriate automatically. Casual games are extremely unpopular so if people enter a rated queue and their game is made casual automatically because of some rating constraints, you're just going to end up with the frustrating situation where people abort over and over until they get a rated queue, doesn't sound fun :\

I wasn't clear enough: nope, nobody would be in such a situation; people are either launching a casual game, OR it's a rated game with thus some players unable to join (basically only the players +/-200 around the person who launched it would be able to join).

Seems too constricting, I don't see what's wrong with just joining x+ queues

I have had a similar idea to this and think it would be better that all players who join a queue made by someone else must be within +/- 600. This wouldn't be as constraining but would get rid of a lot of farming. 

Gustav, you basically let it to the good will of people (and myself I seldom play games which are that different from my current level), but it's clear that most of the problems are with those who don't. It makes the overall rating system slightly flawed as for some people the ratings are clearly inflated.

it might work for ffa standard but that's the only one it would work for

like it would not work for teams antichess there are only 2 players within 200 points of me and

only about 25-30 who are 600 points from me

YES, I of course meant it for the 5 individual standard modes only (Solo and FFA, 3 different timings).

Another solution would be to downsize significantly the rating changes IF the span between the highest and the lowest rating on the board is beyond let's say 300 pts. Basically like today, people launch whatever game they want and join whatever game they want. BUT if the span is too large, no problem, the result will just be considered as 5 (or 10) times less significant. Basically all players would earn/lose much less points than now. So for example if a 2650 player wins against 3 2000 players, he would only earn 0.1 maybe. That would DRAMATICALLY decrease the farming.

And the players who launch/join the games, would immediately see with the settings if that game is potentially counted with this huge correction (i.e. if they join for example a 1800-2400 game, they know that MAYBE the results won't count a lot, and it's fair).

Skill-based matchmaking (SBMM) for Solo is not really an option at the moment because there are not enough players.

FFA it seems like most of the games have a minimum rating, but like for the medium ranges I might like to see a double-ended range, so like instead of a 1700+ game it would be a 1600-1800 game to keep out over-ranked players.

For Solo I'd recommend you only really need a few default buckets: <1400, 1400-1600, 1600-1900, and 1900+

There's only about 75 active players in the 1900 tier, I'm sure there are probably more who have not played in the past 2 weeks. 

1600-1900 is a nice place for the pool of players who are good enough to win some games to get ahead of the starting rating, but maybe not with consistency yet as they learn & improve.

1400-1600 is a good place for players with provisional ratings to match up with one another at the beginning. I sense that many players get discouraged to play Solo. In general it is discouraging to play Solo in the first place because 3/4 of the players lose, but especially when you're beginning against veteran players who are very likely to win. This artificially thins the player pool as a negative feedback loop, therefore SBMM is most beneficial to this tier by far.

<1400 is a great way for people who have lost their provisional games to get some experience gaining wins against players of similar skill so that they can regain experience and confidence moving back into the 1400-1600 and 1600+ tiers.

This is a feature that should be instituted as a default. Whoever initiates the game should automatically create an SBMM game. 

This is more generally a referendum on "what should the default format be?" which in my opinion is SBMM, Anonymous, QRBN promotion, +20 mate. Establishing a consistent framework builds the player pool

Well farming isn't really a thing in FFA is it? It's much scarier to play against 3x 1800 than against 3x 2300 because they might play completely illogically \ chaotically and it's much more likely to end up 4th. Yeah farming is a thing in Teams and some ratings are inflated, but seeing how the top the teams on the LB right now are icy and valger, I think that shows real skill is good for being in the top in the current system anyway

Yes, it is true as well, to play against 3 weak players drives you to 4th place easily, especially if it's not anon and they simply cooperate 3 vs. 1, afraid of your rating.

However, I believe the general quality would improve if the levels matched better. 

Gustav, have you seen this? https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ffa-rating-calculation-an-old-proposal

whats going on in short someone!