Poll: What rating System for FFA would you prefer?

There is an element of truth to this but remember no one judged a player by how high their rating was IF their GD was high as well. Having 2700 and a 60GD is much better than 2900 but an 90GD. So for those of us at the very top, Rojitto at 3300 with 68GD, EyeOfTheTiger at 3100 with 60GD and myself at 3100 with 62GD this really isn't applicable. Just adding this caveat in defence of your argument for some of us. People can still have issues with the scoring system for other reasons, I know Rojitto would agree with me in saying that it makes no sense for players near our rating to play anything sub 2800+ (these games no longer exist) due to the change in rating system. 

2 -0.5 -0.5 -1 should hopefully provide a good halfway point that works for the higher rated players as well however the key issue is getting games going atm and when the highest available is 2350-2950 capped queues (from what I've seen) we literally cannot even play in them even if we wanted to (which we don't because the setup is lame and pretty much anyone in that queue is going to throw and we get punished for it whilst they lose a singular point or something stupid with the current system).

@tommerrall949

I think the rating you are suggesting does not fit the way how 4PC works.

In 4PC there is a 4-player stage and a 3-player stage those are the main phases of the game that need different skills. So the first big step is coming to the 3-player stage and the 2nd big step is winning that stage. The rating system should mirror this. So I think there should be a big gap between 3rd and 4th a small gap between 3rd and 2nd and a very big gap between 2nd and 1st.

This is why I suggest +4 0 -1 -3 I think this rating system mirrors the way 4PC is played best.

Also, anything where 2nd ≠ 3rd as a rating system I think is fundamentally broken.

I know there is basically no difference between 2nd and 3rd but I would not say that there is absolutely no difference between 2nd and 3rd.

I know but what im saying is it should always be 2nd = 3rd for a rating system to work.

there's also +3 0 -0.75 -2.25

this one is way better than the proposed one 

The problem with ANY system where the 2nd has 0  (X 0 Y Z) is that it becomes neutral to be 2nd. And it would encourage perverse effects like: I see that I can't win anymore (or at least it's very unlikely/complicated), I don't want to waste my time (nor risk to be 3rd or 4th), I'm playing for 2nd helping someone to win (and in order to play a new one). It's not very fair for 3rd and 4th, and it's not good for general quality of games. 

+4 -1 -1.5 -1.5 could be interesting maybe.

Which is why 2nd=3rd=0 completely deals with that issue

+4; 0; -1, -3

If i was you, tommerrall949 , i will make the poll like this:

«React  for +3 -1 -1 -1;

             for +3 +1 -1 -3

                    ...

This is the one I proposed scaled by the factor of 0,75.

I am a huge fan of this distribution because I think it represents the way FFA is played the best.

I don't think that that is an issue I think it's a benefit.
If you are in a 3-player stage that you can't win anymore, you still can play for negating the loss.  Playing for 2nd is only a problem if players do it right from the start. But you don't play for zero elo. But if you have no other option you better take the draw than the loss.

This is why I think a difference between 2nd and 3rd is important. I know that there is not much difference considering how the game works, but if there is even a slight difference it helps to end games. And it actually takes out randomness. Because sometimes you just end up in a position where you can't win yourself anymore but you are the one to decide who will win. If there is no incentive in one direction it is just random. If there is a way to achieve a better final placement you will try this.

So a difference in elo calculation between 2nd and 3rd makes the game more strategic.

Therefore: Empty calculation: +4 0 -1 -3 

@empty_K3 your Approach has had a significant growth in the last hours.

1st: +4 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -3 losses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we talk about similar proposals, I would tell you the following:

Voting Poll Update:

Go to vote:
https://forms.gle/uwjPJeduok4MD1VA8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Ranking System do you prefer in FFA? Option 2 New Approach

similarity of graph proposal: Blue, Purple and Green

Blue: 9,3% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: -0.5 losses | 3rd: -0.5 losses | 4th: -1 losses
Purple: 23,3% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: -1 losses | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -2 losses (also similar to Current Version) 👀
Green: 7% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: -1/3 losses | 3rd: -2/3 losses | 4th: -1 losses

similarity of graph proposal: Red, Yellow and Light blue

Red: 25,6% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -1 losses
Yellow: 20,9% 1st: +1 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: 0 draw | 4th: -1 losses
Light blue 14% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -3 losses

Revealing fact of the active people who think about this.

To what we perceive this morning, there is now a clear difference to what we see this afternoon:

- Current voting is showing a clear superiority advantage, most people want to return to the format of the previous FFA essence and approve new proposals set in that same field. The minority of the people surveyed in voting, prefers a current SOLO style system.

Would be bad:

a) with 0 for the 2nd, there are many perverse effects, cf. above,

b) with -3 for the 4th, the punishment is such that it encourages to play "to avoid to be 4th at any cost" and it makes low quality games. In addition, it would reduce significantly the number of games as high rated players wouldn't easily join queues which are too low rated, as the risk for them would be HUGE. It is very easy to get 4th for a 2500-3200 player (especially in a non-anon. game) as quite often the 3 remaining players would play 3 vs. 1. Also very often the 2 sides target the best player and the incompetent low rated player in front doesn't do anything to help.

Definitely such a BIG difference between the 3rd and the 4th would reduce both number of games and the overall level of the games. NO WAY amigo.

2nd > 3rd  will inevitably lead to people playing for 2nd place. Is that really what we want?

It seems to be so easily forgotten that we were in a world of hurt for so long, years of discussion, which led to the decision to make 2nd=3rd.

Now we are in a world of hurt as we watch the active players list drop thousands a week with the SFA rating system which doesn't actually solve the things it theoretically is meant to (see MoreMao game on discord) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

You're mixing things again, Radon. I'm talking about, and arguing for 2nd=3rd. both FFA and SFA have 2nd=3rd. You're off topic. This is a response to empty's idea.
Go rant about players dropping somewhere else, there are plenty of topics for it.

New suggestion +3 +1 +1 -5