Poll: What rating System for FFA would you prefer?

Congrats you've just started April Fools' Day 11 months in advance

Lol everyone will just try to not be 4

+1 +2 +3 +4 let's go?

Me, i dœsn't like the system 2nd = 3rd because that will be useless to get the second place if we lose the same number or points than if we get the 3rd place. 

I voted fo +4; 0; -1; -3. I think is the best because the winner win a lot of points because he is the best and is not in every game that we get the first place; the second place is good but the player who get the 2nd place has been also checkmated and dominated, so he shouldn't get points because he isn't the best. The 3rd place should lose points because he didn't go far in the game, and the 4th should lose a lot of points because he is the 1st eliminated, and is a SHAME. 

So go to +4, 0, -1, -3‼

BeatifulGoose, look, you only play variants and visibly NEVER standard FFA, I do not think honestly that your opinion on the subject is really relevant.

"i dœsn't like the system 2nd = 3rd because that will be useless to get the second place if we lose the same number or points" : that's precisely the aim of the rule, as playing for 2nd ruins games and makes them low level (and unfair quite often, when an idiot throws the game to some other lucky player, making it a time waste for the remaining player), all strong players will agree on that.

"the 4th should lose a lot of points because he is the 1st eliminated, and is a SHAME" : I definitely do not agree. In most non-anon. games a player with significantly higher rating will be targeted; so many times I had a 3 vs. 1 just because they were afraid (despite of my low rating in fact, but as they were 200-400 pts lower it was impressing for them).  And anyway even for a 3200+ player it's pretty easy and not shameful at all to be 4th if they have an idiot in front. You just CANNOT resist a joint coordinated and professional attack from the sides if the opp does nothing. A passive opp (or worse an opp who attacks you in the 1st stage FFA) makes you 4th almost inevitably. So, no, to say "it's a shame" is irrelevant, and to punish the 4th place THAT much comparatively to the 3rd is not efficient. That would simply encourage perverse effects like people playing to avoid being 4th at any cost, and it would make the overall game quality much lower.

Players have to be encouraged to win (=1st place); shouldn't be encouraged to settle for 2nd; shouldn't be encouraged to play in order not to get 4th. And no player should have 0 (neutral outcome) as it also would have perverse effects.

That's why I believe the classic Solo +3 -1 -1 -1, or otherwise something like +2.5 -0.5 -1 -1 would be definitely good.

@Indipendenza
I think the 2 ways you can see this is either:
There is one winner and 3 losers. Solo rating: +3 -1 -1 -1
Or
Each placement should make a difference.
There are a lot of ways you can see this because you can argue how much difference there is between the placements. But I think it's quite obvious that the difference between 3rd and 4th is bigger than between 3rd and 2nd. This is why I suggested Empty rating: +4 0 -1 -3
But you can argue that there is basically no difference between 3rd and 2nd which would be represented by the high FFA rating: +3 0 0 -3
But I think this forgets that 2nd and 3rd are losers as well and much better than this would be the Radon rating: +4 -1 -1 -2

Representative for how the game works I think Radon rating is best but I think a form of Empty rating benefits the strategic aspect of the game because no difference between two placements can lead to random decisions in the 3-player-stage.

I abs. agree on most things; and YES all that us fully arguable. 

But I think that in addition to what we believe to be the correct/fair value of every place, we MUST also take into account the EFFECTS that this or that system generates.

I've said numerous times why I believe that to have 0 as result for any place; to have a significant difference between 2nd and 3rd; to have a huge loss for the 4th, etc. generate perverse effects and would make the overall quality of the game much lower.

Also the perception of the "correct" scoring system varies quite a lot with your level; and also depends on your own risk aversion. 

That's why I like the current system which adapts to the level (BUT I believe that it becomes pure Solo too early; should be around 2300 instead).

Dear 4pc Players

If we wanted to close the vote today, things would look like this:

49 votes



The winning proposals are:

👍🏼 Light blue: 16,3% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -3 losses
✅ Red: 24,5% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -1 losses
⚔️ Blue: 12,2% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: -0.5 losses | 3rd: -0.5 losses | 4th: -1 losses
🛡️  Purple: 22,4% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: -1 losses | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -2 losses

I will sincerely stand firm with my approach, and the current statistics confirm it 
✅ Red: 24,5% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -1 losses

"But as you know, where the captain rules, the sailor does not rule".

I have gone out on the ground to listen to them and answer their complaints, I cannot do more, I only hope that the Gods accompany us in the next final decision.

I appreciate you as players, both my friends and my enemies, see you in an upcoming battle on the chessboard, which is where I like to fight the most.

Martinaxo

+4 -1 -1 -2.

I've given this a lot of thought, and I like Empty's system the best. 2nd neither wins or loses, so it's pointless to play for 2nd in the 3 player stage. 

It doesn't make sense for 2nd-4th to all lose equally, because in most cases 2nd played better than 3rd or 4th.

If we want to make 2nd-4th losers, it should at least be segmented, while 4th should always lose the most. 

+4 -0.5 -1 -2.5

I mean, I personally disagree with 2nd being 0 due to the fact that players will team with their opposite and probably continuing to team up in the 3 player stage (not always the case) I think 2nd being -0.5 is a minor loss and it doesn't change anything, still teaming...If high rrated players don't like -1.33 and losing rating, just give them -1 High level games should be Solo, just to prevent FFA becoming teams. One solution is to make it like WTA after certain rating range, but also give 2800+ players a chance to play with lower rated players and potentially a different rating system where 2nd is +1 or sth like WTM (where teaming is encouraged)just with 2nd being 0 or -0.5 just to stop teaming. I see nothing wrong with what MFQ has done before. Some call it an "abuse" of the system and some find it courageous and safe play in order to keep the rating high enough just to stay on the leaderboard...

Regardless she had a super high rating deviation which we can use to see that she farmed the rating to get there (not that she couldn't have gotten there otherwise) so I don't think there was an argument here to begin with.

I like this suggestion quite a lot as well.
It symbolises that 2nd is also already a loser even if he played best of the 3 who lost.

There will always be teaming in the early stage. And there is also teaming in the 3-player-stage. Important is that alliances switch as the game progresses. That's essential for FFA. The game only breaks if you have one partner from start to end. Then you just have a teams game, and FFA is dead.

@empty_K3 > There will always be teaming in the early stage. And there is also teaming in the 3-player-stage. Important is that alliances switch as the game progresses. That's essential for FFA. The game only breaks if you have one partner from start to end. Then you just have a teams game, and FFA is dead. / exactly is the essence of FFA, and there are many forums of expert and experienced players, who also say so.

However I invite you to watch this game with the current ranking system:

1 | 7 FFA 2500+ | 29-04-2022

empty_K3 | DZIRI05 | JCrossover_14 | Typewriter44

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/26445607/268/1

- The 4 player stage, it was TEAM or Strategic Alliance, which is absolutely natural, and inevitable.
- The 3-player stage was extremely close where no one wanted to attack, everyone was passive, and there were many passing plays.
- Typewriter44 He is highly skilled at playing positional, which is a virtue for this system and can lead you to success.
- Time control 1 | 7 FFA, I lead them to make many mistakes due to time, due to the possible fall of the flag and I take good advantage of that red, in the center of the board.

For me, that is really boring, since those games lack the essence of FFA. And as I said in the chat comments, it is literal and textual, because that's what it felt like at the time.

That's how SOLO games are, Eternal 🥱😴💤💤💤

1. -1

2. +5

3. +1

4. -15

This is best! With old FFA Ranking systems, you create a bunch of " great " players to whom is only important not to be the last so they pump they rating over 3000. Next year this time we will have 4000+ rating! So good job admins!!! Just still listen great brains and you will be good!

Oh please...

Yes I agree. But still from my perspective the 4th loses too much.

I believe that in a good system

a) no one should be encouraged to play for 2nd

b) no one should be encouraged to ruin the game for some other player(s) just trying not to be 4th.

c) no one should have 0 impact (neutral games).

d) there shouldn't be a big difference between 2nd and 3rd.

That's why +4 -0.5 -1 -2.5 is fully good, with the exception if b). I.e. the difference 3rd/4th is too big IMHO. Also, a +4 is sometimes unfair (too high) because one may pretty well win by simple luck sometimes (disconnection, dramatic blunder, idiots aside who attack each other early, etc.). 

Why not something like +3 -0.5 -1 -1.5 ?!

It does not matter if it's +3 or +4 because you can adjust the elo factor to make it the same again. The numbers should only symbolize the relative difference between the placements.

I think the difference between 2nd and 3rd should be smaller than between 3rd and 4th this is why I don't Like +3 -0.5 - 1 -1.5 that much.

But maybe in between +3,5 - 0,5 -1 -2 is fine.
(or scaled to whole numbers: +7 -1 - 2 -4)