Poll: FFA rating changes too small?

FFA rating changes

In teams, you can easily get +20 or more. I don’t think it’s too much because very high rated players often only get +0.3 or so. Teams games are ofter short aswell.

FFA games on the other side tend to be long, and often first and last place get no more than +-10 (or even less). I'd prefer bigger rating changes. Playing for 40 minutes, getting 2nd and +2 feel meager to me.

FFA ratings calcs involve a match against each of your 3 oppoenents (win, lose, tie, by points).  Then the total rating change is divided by 3.

I suggest dividing by 2.

For those who remember, in the beginning we did not divide at all, winning got you like +60 or more. or less

I think this would also add more excitement to the leaderboard!

Aborting games:

So far, 2618 (1583 timeouts, 1035 resigns) of 20051 FFA games and 1187 (415 T, 772 R) of 8778 Teams games have been aborted.

As you will have noticed, aborting a game will cost you 10 rating points.

I also suggest increasing the punishment for aborting.

Teams abort: -25. FFA: -15 or maybe -20 (depending on suggestion above)

What do you think?

I think the other players in an aborted situation should get 10 points each as well as the abortive getting deducted 10,15 or whatever.

@siluriun, we cannot increase rating for doing nothing. It will be abused.

I think -25 would be a little harsh for players who just happen to lose connection. I think -10 is more than sufficient. Why should there be a punishment anyway for occasionally aborting a game, if it doesn't affect the other players? For regular chess there is no punishment either. Why not make it the same and let the game auto-abort after 15 seconds? Then the others won't have to wait for one minute. Just add a limit to the number of times a player can abort within a certain time span and then apply a penalty if that limit is reached (e.g. after three times a player loses 30 rating). Then abusers will be punished and those who lose connection won't lose rating.

@GDII good ideas. there were long discussions about this in the past, and i think the concern of peope abusing abort is still valid. The difference to live chess is that the player pool is so small. this is also the reason you can't block players in 4pc.

>>Just add a limit to the number of times a player can abort within a certain time span and then apply a penalty if that limit is reached

i like this idea.

do you have no opinion on ffa rating?

I'm not a huge fan of FFA, but I agree the points could be increased.

How about adding 10 points to all "live" players when one of the players resign in FFA? It annoys me when another player gives up without a fight (even if I get 20 points for his king).

@taandr, see my answer above.

I think that on teams, if the game is aborted, the team that loses both persons rating should go down by 20 

@BabYagun,

I am not about rating. I am talking about points like doublecheck (+5 points)

Since the game is on points, the remaining players lose what they could get if surrendered player continue the game.

For example.

Red makes check yellow.

Blue attacks the Queen of yellow.

Yellow's resign.

Red gets a king of yellow.

Blue gets nothing.

It's unfair.

Great ideas!

I completely agree; there should be no penalty if it only happens once or twice. Players who lose connection should not be penalized.

I also like the idea of adding a 15-second auto-abort timer for the first move. Nobody is going to think for longer than 15 seconds about their first move.

I agree, a 15-second auto abort timer is a great idea. I also think that the FFA rating changes are currently too small. 

Yes, absolutely

Actually, for FFA neither Elo nor Glicko are really suitable rating systems, because it's not a pure game of skill. The rating will never reflect a player's true skill due to the element of chance (lower rated players ganging up on higher rated players and making them lose). You need something more sophisticated that somehow takes this into account (something like TrueSkill, but not patented ).

@taandr, thank you for the clarification. But adding 10 points to all live players is not fair too. In your particular example Green would get 10 points also. But why? He did nothing. Also Blue would get 10 points, however that queen is 9. Then why give him 10? And what if he attacked a rook (5), not a queen? Are you sure he could capture that queen if Yellow doesn't resign? Maybe Green could check Blue to not allow him capture that queen.

It is not fair to give points for something that is just probable, but not definite.

It can be 5 poins.. I think resign or time less cannot be without penalty. With the benefit of remaining players. Even if they didn't participate in the current attack, they could still score points later. Resign is too easy a way out for losers.

I think many miss the old days where rating changes were huge. Leaderboard used to be all 2000 players. I vote increase the rating changes.

Yeah right @e4bc4qh5qf7

Increase the rating changes in FFA.

Yup! definitely agreed! top leaderboards should be like the old 2900 ratings...

The rating changes should definitely be increased Sometimes you are not even motivated enough to participate in a game