Possible ratings correction to stop FFA teaming

I will never understand people who play and wont to be 2. The main problem is concept of FFA ( second team variant now ) where you get points for 2 place ( or even 3. with one high rated player ). If you wont to stop teaming in FFA there is simple solution - bring back forced SOLO, like before. And you will have 2 main games : one TEAM, and one FFA/SOLO ! And there will be no more discussion how to eliminate teaming, how to change rules, in one faze of game will be one rules in other second !?!

I know that guys who created this game is against this but let just see what happened after last update: SOLO ( variant of 4pc with big perspective ) is dead and FFA become second variant of TEAM game! In TEAMS we can  develop a theory, in FFA we discus how to eliminate teaming and every solution, seems to me, is bringing us back to SOLO rules ( or complicate to madness rules )

When I started to play 4pc ( before 1,5 year ) there was about 10.000 players in whole world who play this variant of chess. Today, there is nearly 12.000 members of 4pc club... and we have world championships with more then 3.500 live spectators ( youtuber Reydama has over 35.000  viewers for final championship game ). What is my point - this is game with huge perspective, this is game whitch is more interesting then regular chess ( played by hundreds of millions people ) and we are stagnant because of complicate rules, many leaderbords, two solo/ffa variants.

SIMPLIFY EVERYTHING : ONE TEAM GAME, ONE SOLO, ONE LEADERBORD! ONLY GOOD PRODUCT IS SIMPLE PRODUCT!

P.S. Try to explaine someone who never heard for 4pc what it is, with hope that he will try to play it : " you know, there is two variants of 4pc - teams and each player for himself...but one of variants is not truly each for himself...more like teams game...no we don't have two teams games, it is call ffa...and we have solo...no you can't play solo because nobody is playing solo anymore! Who is the best? click leaderbord, then...I don't know what then...no, column with Champions are not realy indicate who is the best...sorry for bother you!" 

Yes

This is not a bad variant for a SOLO, since obviously it will have 3 -1 -1 -1. But this greatly simplifies the game, so this can only be a variant SOLO. But I also suspect that strategy 3 vs 1 will be popular here. For example, everyone will beat red by default.

[3 0 0 -3] Perhaps this will be so. It is difficult to predict which strategy will be more popular. But it seems to me that most likely everyone will play for themselves. But at the same time, players will be very passive at the 4-player stage, fearing to lose first. Since according to the famous Russian proverb, the initiative ****s the initiator (инициатива имеет инициатора). It might also make the game too long.

I did not think about it, it is just better to apply the system 3 0 0 -3.

The 2v2 players who play ffa are pretty ruthless. Most of them could care less about politics. And are pretty good with opposite teaming tactics. They are all very familiar with them. mattedombs idea will pretty much put an end to their howl of terror. For now. WTA will just shut that show down. Still they might team just to eliminate one player off the board! Less competition. Take out the 2 side players and just have a friendly game among themselves! They just might take over ffa to be honest. But with mattedombs suggestion i kind of forgot how it goes, that if you win the opposite player from you will not receive points if I'm correct? That will dismantle a lot of their power which lies in the 2v2 theory. 2v2 chess is a fantastic game where one mistake can easily coast you the game. So the moves, the 2v2 players are aware of, are very dynamic and strong. Giving them less incentive to use those theories will hurt their reign of chaos for now. But not for long like Bab suggested. WTA will bring ffa to it's original form, and you all can just stop crying about second place, there is no second place in chess anyways only one loser and one winner or a draw. To be honest, all this is actually helping ffa, believe it or not. The ffa players should understand these fundamental 2v2 chess moves aswell. The game will grow, and these 2v2 players like it or not are forcing it. lol Like a tough dad putting his foot down, forcing his kid to study! Yea that's what is going on. lol Entertaining but not ffa chess. WTA is raw ffa chess.

FFA / Solo was efficient, here I agree with you Neo. At the beginning, we learned to fight for the first two prizes, and then gaining experience fought only for the first. This is the next level of difficulty that had to be mastered.
After the separation, FFA players lost the need to change their playing style to win one. But the FFA still acquired a new level of complexity - this is the need to learn team strategies.
But I do not agree with you that the modern FFA is just the second TEAM mode. More detailed in the link : https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/modern-ffa-is-not-the-second-team-mode.
I think now we should worry more not about the teams in the FFA, but how to return the players to the SOLO mode.
You can return the old FFA / SOLO system instead of just SOLO, but then essentially there will be two FFA mods with different upgrades for high-rated players. Would that be good? I don't know.

SOLO is FFA. The only reason why there is second place is because players are just big babies about it.

Interesting discussion, guys. Many good ideas. That definitely needs to be fixed, because what I see, many games are just uninteresting because FFA intrinsically pushed you to cooperate. It's not always real teaming, but at least a non-agression pact until at least one of the (common) neighbours dies. And of course you also help sometimes releasing pressure from the opposite when he's under attack. 

As of today, not to help the opposite is just counterproductive. (I still see many weak players weakening the opposite or even attacking/killing him too early and it results in 3rd place in 95% of cases probably). And the de-facto teams are there in the beginning. And we must correct that one way or another.

You are getting it wrong. The points/rating/finishing position is secondary. To win a game, the player would work with the opposite player to take down the side player(s). This is a well-known tactic/strategy. They do it for the sake of not having players on both sides because that is an uncomfortable position to be in. So when you talk about the point system and all, it is odd because they don't team for the points.

Yes However, second place will not be given to you if the opposite player wins. In other words with this system, the opposite player will be your biggest threat. Teaming will still happen but not like before.

I like the idea.

my idea is to bring back +3 0 -1 -2 

if it is still there can someone please tell me how to get to it 

0 is better than -1, this still makes teaming a good strategy.

If you are higher rated, you will still lose points if 2nd in that regime, the same as you can lose points in 3, 1, -, 1, -3 when 2nd if you are much higher rated than opponents. I get the impression that a 0 would be calculated as a win and a loss vs the opponent average, so you could still lose quite a few ratings points.

but to gain rating in +3 0 -1 -2, you have to get 1st and getting 2nd too often is risky. 

well, I think it is almost time to stop these discussions and find out by experiment.

I personally would like to try 3 0 0 -3. But we could play with other systems for a while and compare.

We will probably try 3 X -X -3 where X depends on average rating. And also: 2nd always gains, 3rd always loses rating (aka 2nd = X wins rather than 2X wins + 1X losses as we have currently)

for average rating <=1600, X will remain =1

then drop rapidly:

an example:

(avg is 1779, X is 0.37)

When a FFA game starts you'll be informed in the chat what your rating changes for 1st-4th will/would be (individual for each player).

So the formula you use is x=e^-.0055(r-1600), where r=average rating... Right?

The trasition range seems to be too long and harsh, since even a 2000 player can get +0.1, while a 1700 player only gets +0.6... Maybe for 1950+ players, x=0; and for 1650-, x=1? I also hope for sth softer like x=((1950-r)/300)^2, where r means avg rating.

Or, I personally prefer 3 x -1 -x-2, so it's 3 1 -1 -3 when x=1; 3 0 -1 -2 when x=0, and 3 -1 -1 -1 when x=-1.

l-l!   

>So the formula you use is x=e^-.0055(r-1600), where r=average rating... Right?
you're way off, it's e^(8.8 - 0.0055 * avgRating)   what a nerd you are haha

i think 2nd and 3rd need to be close together to avoid playing for 2nd. Also if we keep Solo as an option which seems to be the plan, then 0 -1 -2 becomes very similar to that.

>a 2000 player can get +0.1, while a 1700 player only gets +0.6

i don't get this. it depends on average rating. and having 1650=1 and 1950 =0 is even harsher, steeper.

i think if it's 0.1 for a game of 2000s is already a huge change. that's 10 times less than it was.

I would not change it so drastically, at least for starters. see how it goes first. and i don't see the need to make it a clean 0, don't see much harm done if even a game of 2200s they get 0.03 or so. It's peanuts.

even 0.5 should have quite some impact on strategy, as 2nd is 6 times worse than 1st. You can risk more to get 1st because you don't lose much if you end up 3rd.