1) What you should check is percentage of players finishing 4th.
2) What are the rating of the players in these games?
On balance and imbalancedness
Sort:
JonasRath написал:
1) What you should check is percentage of players finishing 4th.
2) What are the rating of the players in these games?
1) Ok.
Red is 4th: 14409
Blue is 4th: 16144
Yellow is 4th: 14105
Green is 4th: 16434
2) As I stated earlier, ratings of all players are 2200+
But in games where players are <2200 in rating, I would assume that we'd see a significant increase in green getting 4th, because he has to move last in a situation where even a small team attack by red and yellow could end the game for him very quickly.
Sep 6, 2022
0
#6
I think the randomness of this game (especially in only 2200+, we need a more narrow sample like 2500+) comes from gifting wins and a bad sense of cooperation. It theoretically should balance out, but realistically one color might have more numbers than another whether or not the game is inbalanced.
TheCheesePhoenix написал:
But in games where players are <2200 in rating, I would assume that we'd see a significant increase in green getting 4th, because he has to move last in a situation where even a small team attack by red and yellow could end the game for him very quickly.
In these games (<2200) players usually don't know about complex team attacks.
ChessMasterGS написал:
I think the randomness of this game (especially in only 2200+, we need a more narrow sample like 2500+) comes from gifting wins and a bad sense of cooperation. It theoretically should balance out, but realistically one color might have more numbers than another whether or not the game is inbalanced.
Of course, from game-theoretical point of view there (for almost sure, since there are so many points to get) should be a winning strategy for one of the colours (in contrast to regular chess, where draw is a very common option). And, as in regular chess, we don't know this strategy.
JonasRath написал:
One more question: What starting position is this based on?
Old Setup mostly.
Sep 6, 2022
0
#10
Under the current setup the game is more balanced.
Caveats
1. is it good for the game to be balanced? (clarify: how much balance, esp. in relation to teams)
2. is the current starting position the best (is our current setup as standard what we're staying with)
3. there is a current absense of very strong team players in FFA. When that happens, will we see a large disadvantage for green in 2500+. Possible, and then?
This is unrelated yet related. I have the general sense that FFA has a lot of game flaws that make it unatractive (partly due to marketing I think). I wish that 4pc had someone who specialized in game design, something I don't think it currently has?
Sep 6, 2022
0
#11
YouTube4playerChess wrote:
The game is fine, stop tinkering with it. Every change will drive away some players and we are already down a lot from the last change.
The only thing that we could add would be some simple way to inform new players that "teaming" at the start of the game is the norm. not sure how to really say that as that's not a rule and you don't have to and the site shouldn't be telling people to team. But a huge percent of people must leave after a game or two because it seems unfair. I don't think anyone is leaving because they think red has a huge advantage over green.
Point A I don't even argue (though I admit I probably would support in the scenario) we should change anything. But knowing what (if anything) are the flaws of the game mechanics, and what to do (if anything) to solve them would be extremely useful.
Point B: Agree 100% (why I think we need work on marketing; why I don't like the name FFA)
Hide the Teams section? good joke.
The League is based on Old Standard, and there were 5 players streaming at once on Day 1. When's the last time we had 5 players streaming 4 Player Chess at the SAME time? When New Standard came along, a lot of streamers and excitement for the game was lost.
The level of excitement Old Standard brings to the game cannot be seen by these stats. Since you don't get Red & Yellow every game, and must play Green and Blue as well that in itself balances Old Standard out. Besides Blue and Green can play for an advantage, and have different openings at their disposal, unlike the boring and repetitive new standard.
Please check the stats of how many daily games are being played now vs before the merge.
Also please check how many active FFA players there are, before and after the merge.
Those stats are much more meaningful since the Solo + New Standard changes are responsible for alienating and decreasing the FFA player base.
If Old Standard was still the main standard like it had been for years, the idea for the league would've never been conceived. It takes a long time to get queues for Old Standard, and this is the only we can have guaranteed games 1 day a week. The league is making the game more popular, by getting players streaming and playing again. ChaCha, Radon, FourPlayerChess along with Liquid-Sun, were all streaming and playing different high-level games at the same time, it was awesome.
Since it's out of our hands what direction 4 Player Chess takes, we're playing Old Standard with FFA rules, which is the game we all love. Everyone is welcomed in Season 2 and beyond.
Sep 7, 2022
0
#14
To add on: anybody can join this league. We might put a rating floor soon, but it’s not gonna be more severe than 1700+. Like Los said, this is 1 day (2 games) a week. This league won’t steal players by any means.
Indipendenza wrote:
Bad decisions have to be reversed...
We have a better chance of winning the Lottery this weekend.
Sep 8, 2022
0
#17
What is funny, this year championship was played with the Old Setup 
. Kind of recognition of the issue.
What I don't like with the current setup, your mistakes are costly far too early. It ruins many games. It's not normal that just on move 2 you get checked for instance, which was not possible with the OS. The variance of correct/playable openings because of that is much lower, so the games are less interesting.
Hey, I'm not complaining anymore. If you hate standard, come to variants, because we need more players anyway 
On a serious note, the biggest issue is probably the rating system. There's always going to be people playing for 2nd, either because they don't lose anything if it's FFA or because 2nd-4th lose equally if it's Solo. We need to find the balance between these systems, so that we can try and prevent this as much as possible. The starting setup isn't great, which I agree with, but I can live with it for sure.
YouTube4playerChess написал:
I'm not really advocating this, but...... what about an opening where each player could choose which way he wanted his king and queen. That would create a lot of different looks. I'm not sure that would be a good thing but I never heard that idea before. But really a new change is the last thing we need. Change it back or keep it.
The one real plus to this new opening is that the teaming generally results in one "team member" taking the other ones queen and thus ending the partnership after a mate. And we don't have that thing where you have to bring your queen out where the other queen could take you but you know by his rating that he won't.
I'm still waiting for 4 Player Chess 960. In your variation it is Chess 15360 
ChecksForTheChecksGod wrote:
YouTube4playerChess написал:
I'm not really advocating this, but...... what about an opening where each player could choose which way he wanted his king and queen. That would create a lot of different looks. I'm not sure that would be a good thing but I never heard that idea before. But really a new change is the last thing we need. Change it back or keep it.
The one real plus to this new opening is that the teaming generally results in one "team member" taking the other ones queen and thus ending the partnership after a mate. And we don't have that thing where you have to bring your queen out where the other queen could take you but you know by his rating that he won't.
I'm still waiting for 4 Player Chess 960. In your variation it is Chess 15360
4pc 960 already exists, and it's not Chess 15360, but rather Chess 16 since there are only 16 different starting positions you can get if you switch all the kings and queens around (there are two setups for each player, one with the king on the left and queen on the right, and another with the queen on the left and king on the right, and since there are 4 players that are independent of each other, you would have 2*2*2*2 = 16)
Some people from the Internet keep saying that 4 Player Chess is imbalanced. I'm not sure so. Write your arguments about balance there.
Here is mine.
Moderator sent me about 60.000 of 2200+-rated FFA games. So, here is statistics.
Red is winner: 15917 Red 1st Blue 2nd: 3302 Red 1st Yellow 2nd: 9409 Red 1st Green 2nd: 3512
Blue 1st Red 2nd: 3622 Blue is winner: 14554 Blue 1st Yellow 2nd: 3169 Blue 1st Green 2nd: 8020
Yellow 1st Red 2nd: 9299 Yellow 1st Blue 2nd: 3475 Yellow is winner: 15821 Yellow 1st Green 2nd: 3314
Green 1st Red 2nd: 3197 Green 1st Blue 2nd: 8212 Green 1st Yellow 2nd: 3680 Green is winner: 14818
So, statistically, game is more or less balanced while all 4 players are active, then in 3-player stage chances for the player in-between-two-others are 2,5 times (or 60%) lesser.