FFA=SOLO/ Simplify the game

100% Arseny.

2 years ago when it became possible to configure games ad nauseam, we opened clearly a Pandora's box. Because people now play much less the standard game and it became often tricky to find an available game at some hours, especially if you want to play with strong players...

We should (I believe) to fix the rules once for all, and to create simple buttons "launch a standard 1/7 FFA game", "launch a standard 1/3 Teams game", "launch a standard 4/0 Solo game", etc. i.e. people will have to choose only the MODE (FFA/SOLO/TEAMS, or maybe later like we suggested, just 2 options, INDIVIDUAL/TEAMS) and the timing (and also anon./not anon.), nothing else. Everything else (funny pieces, antichess, hyperbullet, diplo, takeover, etc.) being in Variants. 

If we do not move back to the 2018 situation, with 90% of Mainstream games, we'll simply confuse new entrants and reduce significantly the speed of expansion of our beautiful hobby. It's so clear for me that the current situation with 1001 variants and configurations is simply confusing for people. I strongly believe that only experienced players should be able to join variants if they want; that the variants' ratings shouldn't be easily visible to everyone nor should they influence ever the champions leaderboard, etc. 

Simplicity and clarity are very strong marketing tools. Too many options kill the product.

yes, I would also continue so that by 2300 it would be 3 -1.5 -1 -0.5 or 4 -5/3 -4/3 -1 (https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/possible-ratings-correction-to-stop-ffa-teaming?page=6 #104 - 109). but so far it doesn't matter. It is necessary to decide which function will be used. Here is one specific suggestion:

X=-tanh((avgRating-1950)/230), so avgRating->X: 1700->0.80, 1800->0.57, 1900->0.21, 2000-> -0.21, 2100-> -0.57, 2200-> -0.80? (for rating change 3/x/-1/-2-x) (https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/rapid-ffa-solo-and-blitz-ffa?page=2)

would anyone like to suggest any other function?

back in the WTA days, the vast majority of "advanced casual players usually rated somewhere 1450-1650" did not like it at all that they were forced to play 'something else', more over somewhat randomly when they happen to land in a high rated game.

i agree that 3 0 0 -3 and 4 -4/3 -4/3 -4/3 are too similar as optimal strategy seems identical to play teams 4way. -3 for 4th seems to me the better option as 2550+ luciano was criticizing someone to his left for sacking his queen to save oppo, risking 4th. i haven't watched any high rated games lately but this would appear to be a favourable trend, if it is one.

after nearly  3 years of debate,  Solo / 3 0 0-3 FFA has been tho only somewhat effective solution.

i think Hest's +3 idea is a better shot at making ffa a better game. you have to earn  points or you wont win. have you tried +10? (it's an available option.. alongside +3 20 and 40)

players with 2050-2250 (old 1450-1650, without inflation ffa as in solo 1750-1950) will always be not happy, because the main change in the playing style is not imposed by the rating system, but by the 4pc community itself, which using the best strategy at a high-rating level
Each of the systems 3 0 0 -3 and 3 -1 -1 -1 has its own big disadvantage. In the first system, this is a big loss for 4th, which actually depends on color (yellow and red have a rather tangible advantage) and on opp (passive opp + green/blue color, this can be fatal even for the top player). In the second system, this is the stage 3 players, where there is often a situation in which one of the players with the lowest chances of winning decides who will win out of the other two (if not all three top players, then this often turns into outright spoilage of the game). Both of these shortcomings are usually offset by the number of games played. But overall, the solo rating system seems to me more reasonable in terms of assessing the player's level and leaderboard and more variable in the opening plan and strategies at the 4 player stage
The coexistence of both systems does not seem to me an effective solution, primarily because of the separation of the streams of games and players, which is bad for a relatively small 4 pc community. The main point here is the priority of future development: either 4pc is a platform for fun, then need more leaderboards to encourage and satisfy more players, or 4pc is a platform for more professional sports, then need more competition for a limited number of leaderboards. The second option is more ambitious and I like it much more
I also believe that hest experiment will have more positive impact than any change in the rating system. But the remerger, I think, will also have a positive effect and set the stage for new changes

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/who-here-is-afraid-to-play-ffa-due-to-having-inflated-ratings-2200  

"but I prefer FFA to teams"

Solo doesn't solve this. Hyper Fiesta does

therefore, can reunite for different time controls in different ways, keeping both FFA and Solo, but halving the number of leaderboards

...wasn't about the hyper part, it was about +3 +CaptureTheKing making for good games.

I agree, it will have to be remerged one day. Simply because FUNDAMENTALLY there are 2 possibilities in 4p chess, it's either "2 against 2", or "everyone plays to win". I.e. TEAMS vs. INDIVIDUAL.

Whatever we do, playing with parameters and rules, the adjustments will only have for effect this or that style/optimal strategy/methods involved by the parameters. But whatever happens, the only goal of the 1st game is to determine WHICH TEAM IS BETTER, and of the 2nd game WHICH PLAYER IS THE BEST. 

To win alone isn't possible, so whatever we do with parameters, some cooperation will always exist, and we'll always have to use other players to win. That makes the game so subtle as the appropriate moment to do this or that is very tricky to determine.

Now, 2 years after the split FFA/Solo, I believe it shouldn't have been split; the problem of FFA is that after some level (I would say between 1900 and 2100) it's mainly "3 stages, 1st stage <4 players>: 100% teams, 2nd stage <3 players>: it depends, 3rd stage <2 players>: it's war". And even if many proposals have been formulated how to reduce dramatically the most blatant forms of teaming (cf. for example 

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/a-new-proposal-ffa-solo-ratings-points-system

and

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ideas-to-prevent-teaming-in-ffa)

visibly it's not a priority for admins. So the most unpleasant forms of teaming still continue to pollute the game. But I still believe that we shall have to act in this direction; and that FFA and Solo will have to be remerged. 

The skills of a player in the Individual mode should exclusively influence his rating and his position in the leaderboard without too big influence of the opposite he had and of the coefficients used (Solo style, FFA style, something in between...). That will become obvious to all, one day, I am sure. As of today, I prefer to play solo as there is much less teaming.

Sometimes in Solo I sac my queen to save my opposite. It happens rarely, like 3 games in I won't say 1000 games, but let's say way less than that, but that was back in the day when DKW didn't exist. I'm talking about a queen sac, I even did it on my opposite, just making that player lose: a (9pt) queen or +20 or prevent mate or queen and a piece or 2 minor pieces plus a rook or bishop (for my 9pt queen)