Poll: What rating System for FFA would you prefer?

What would be the Best Rating System for FFA?

The Options we know are:
Solo +3 -1 -1 -1
FFA +3 +1 -1 -3
High FFA +3 0 0 -3

And @Radon and I both suggested a further Option:
Radon +4 -1 -1 -2
Empty +4 0 -1 -3

What do you think is best?
Do you have other Ideas?

Let me know!
Cheers Michael

I like the current FFA, as second place still gains something. 
How about +4 +1 -2 -3?

+3 +1 -1 -3

I think it's similar to the +3 +1 -1 -3 but with a higher incentive to team on after the first mate.

+4 -1 -1 -2 and +4 0 -1 -3 both look like they could work well.

FFA, High FFA.

You can press the Link to do the Poll.

Yours looks good ig

Some admins have suggested +2 -0.5 -0.5 -1

What do you think in general of punishing 4th more (but not as much), and scaling down the changes overall? Personally I don't see why not just 4 -1 -1 -2. But some prefer smaller changes (I think the changes are pretty small even as is). What do you think?

+3.5, -0.5, -0.75, -2?

Doesn't that just require more games for those who desire to play for rating (which is really the whole basis of these arguments)?

... you clearly are not in the loop high rated FFA is now solo...

i suggest Empty i was actually gonna suggest this rating system where second gets +0... makes more sense in my mind

so the whole rating system inflates more??

Isn't Solo generally +4 -1.33 -1.33 -1.33, not +3 -1 -1 -1?

@spacebar

+2 -0,5 -0,5 -1 is the same as +4 -1 -1 -2 it's just scaled by a factor. 
All these suggestions should only show concepts they have to be scaled by elo factors anyways.

@jessezafirakos
Same thing: scaled by a factor. As a mathematician, I like to scale things in a way that I can work with Integers.

Gold Arena <2500  +3 +1 -1 -3

Platinum Arena 2500-2800 +3 0 -1 -2

Diamond Arena 2800+ +3 -1 -1 -1

For me it's the worst system. a) it's very easy to get 4th just having an idiot in front, with nothing wrong you did. And here the punishment is too hard, -3. b) people are encouraged to play for 2nd.  c) the 4th place is so terrible that this encourages perverse moves made just to avoid being 4th (instead of trying to be 1st). 

Some postulates first.

a) there is NO ideal system.

b) players should be encouraged to play to WIN, i.e. to be 1st.

c) it's easy to get 4th sometimes despite of having played very correctly, just because you have an incompetent player as opp.

d) the difference between 3rd and 4th is not relevant, and shouldn't exist really.

e) it is NOT stupid to have different systems for different layers. Because contrary to 2p classical chess, here there is a group dynamic and a lot of psychology (like in poker) and the experience of the 4 players is critical. Therefore I personally do like the current system (but maybe it should be more Solo from a significantly higher level than now, probably from 2200/2300).

Another way to address that is to consider that Top 100 players are the world elite at any given moment, and therefore it could be for instance FFA when there are 0 or 1 player like this, and in case there are 2, 3 or 4 VIPs, it becomes automatically Solo. (Very different from the old WTA system from some level, where the average ELO was taken into account). 

the current scoring system is the best competitively. The problem is some top players are afraid of losing their points, and they don't say that publicly because it's not something to be proud of. And why is the new system better? because it prevents top players from inflating their ELO in low rating games like missfairyqueen did, or it prevents players from giving away games like Joobla since before he could do that without being punished in his rating, and for those who say he is not aggressive the initial phase, they are wrong, they did not see the SOLO championship, it is played in the same way as the normal FFA, it is still profitable to help your opponent because you get a better position for the end of three and you get some points in the process of kill a side These 4pc updates were good but poorly executed, since the server is worse, aesthetically it is more confusing and has more lag

+3, 0 ,-1.5, -1.5.

I know it's controversial, but hear me out.

Like indi said, we need to get people pushing for that win.

The current meta is to eliminate a player playing cooperatively, then deal with the 3-player stage equally. However, some people push for only a second place. Hopefully, this will be discouraged by awarding 2nd place nothing.

Similarly, in a lost position, some players will play for third, as it's "not that much of a rating decrease". I believe players should always be pushed to try better, and awarding 3rd and 4th equal losses should eliminate people playing for the "lesser of two evils".

And obviously, 1st place should be rewarded generously.

It's not quite solo, but would be a very interesting dynamic change that would bring about  slightly modified meta (for the better IMO) and hopefully lead to MUCH more exciting games!