You should be more worried about the team players coming into ffa and literally taking over.
It will be very good, it will improve the quality of the game in the first stage 2 vs 2.
FFA is not supposed to be teams, it is supposed free for all
Elo hungry. You should be more worried about the team players coming into ffa and literally taking over. I don't even know if hest will survive this. He is ok at teaming but not as good as Kujtimi, icystun, valger, hamanda, ect.ect.ect. Stay focused on what is going on, then the FFA will grow fantastically. I've seen players in earn ratings that were very high in 2v2 chess. Simply by playing against noob players over and over. That's not real ratings. I think that's called "abusing", or something. I've done it, but then stopped, cause it don't really represent your skill anymore just shows how one can gain elo in a very pathetic way. NO. We must all be competitive and not worry about the elo but rather the game. Then we can see some verrrrry interesting games which we can ALL learn from. Some rely on deception, others laugh at it. I wonder why....
that is true it is 1v 1v 1v 1v
I think a good way to stop or reduce teaming is by changing the amount of points allocated while taking your direct opponent pieces, as long as 4 players are still playing. I think if you rate x1.5 the direct opponent points, and 0.75 the side opponents, it might give some incentive to target the direct opponent rather than the side players, therefore, reduce teaming. This would only work if all 4 players are still playing.
Say you take your direct opponent Q, you score 12, 8 for his bishop, meanwhile, taking side player's Q would score 6, their bishop 4, etc...
@Magicsteph this option already exists you can add it to your standard games (eg it doesn't count as a variant)
adding options Ox5 and x6 soon.
I think we'll use this for starters
I think #54 better.
When do you plan to implement this and how?
I like the 2 X -X -2 system. Where X is calculated as in # 54. It does not hit 4 places hard (-2 better -3). For +1850 this is 2 0.67 -0.67 -2 (as 3 1 -1 -3), for +1500 2 1 -1 -2 it will give an opportunity to quickly gain a rating, for +2100 2 0.2 -0.2 -2 the difference of 10 times, the top players will play only for first place.
"Play-4-Mate" could potentially use a better name
about #54, not afraid the 1900-2000 ish games will remain quite teamy? 0.5 for ex still has quite a big diff 2nd to 3rd, like +4 v -4
about #54, not afraid the 1900-2000 ish games will remain quite teamy? 0.5 for ex still has quite a big diff 2nd to 3rd, like +4 v -4
First you need to change the game top players. +1900 and +2000 watch the game of top players, and the second ones play with them. It is in their interests to change their playing style if they want to move on. Also, 1900-2000, unlike 2100 -... are more passive in attack and know less team theory, many will be happy to rebuild their game.
Also, this option will be less radical. I think this is important.
I also care about two other issues.
Imagine that we got rid of team strategies (as in the TEAM mode) in the FFA.
First, will it kill Solo? The solo was essentially an option against team strategies. Another option will appear, essentially an alternative to SOLO, with the same style of play, but just with a different rating system.
And secondly, many players from the TEAM mode (some highly rated) began to play in FFA, there was an integration of SOLO and TEAM players in the modern FFA. Many are unhappy, but everyone is playing! Will FFA lose new players?
#54 is too weak imo. will have no effect on bullet or variants where ratings are lower.
also think that if there is one low rated player in a game it will suck to be opposite him, the sides will love the exta points for 2nd.. . also 2high vs 2 low rated .. they should be seated mixed really. that's an old idea. i think strongest should not be opps at least some % of the time. current seating is 100% random
..meanwhile, check out new futers and randos now on https://www.chess.com/4pc-test with arrow-skillz 
>2 player and 3 player games
these can only be rated if we list positions for them. not sure if/what games to list
i think 3 0 0 -3 (the -3 for last nothing changes, it's just relatively worse) ppl wont like just as they don't like wta. it's hard to win!
> +1.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5
seems bit lame?
+3 0 0 -3 and +3 X X -3 are bad ideas, definitely as I said in another post and explained everything.
+1.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 is really bad. Not different from the current one and really slower. I know, you want to suffer less when someone makes you lose by resigning. It's their will if they want to do it or not. We can't change that. High ranked players do that.
Now +3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 what's bad about this one you might ask? I'll make it simple. In every 3 games you play, you have to win 2 and you can lose one game and still gain some rating. In good old WTA setup +4 -1 -1 -2 you can comfortably lose 2 games and win 1 game every 3 games literally and keep it like that (playing with ranks, highest matchmaking setup) You will get rating and still be fine. Note: When I said lose 2 win 1, I meant lose 2 with (ending up with being 2nd or 3rd)
Now let's talk about the "vs average opponent" rating system. I think it shouldn't be the same (in Solo) as in FFA, because in Solo you play with lower rated players, way below your rank. But even if you play with players the same rank as you, I assure you - there's MORE than 50% chance that you'll LOSE RANK even after every 3 games you play.
+3 feels more like winning 3 player worthy rank.
+4 is more like winner takes all.
+3 can't really be called all because one takes lower rank gain than intended.
+3 is more like nerfed WTA
What I mean is: The winner gains rating, 3 other players lose equally. It is Solo, whatever number you'll use for X in this formula: +X -0.33*X -0.33*X -0.33*X
+3 -1 -1 -1
+9 -3 -3 -3
Still Solo.
P.S. Sorry, missed the fact that +3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 is unbalanced and will cause rating deflation.
Yes, thank you. Finally noticed. I hope you'll improve Solo mode somehow. The whole admin team I mean, pls discuss about it. amongst each other and also some top players might help... Look at Arseny's solo archive or it doesn't matter who, anyone who actively plays Solo, a bit unbalanced and hard to gain rating.
FFA is 95% teams except you do not have to team up . in play 4 mate everybody can win,but the points without checkmate also counts . I don't think this test really works. how about stoping FFA. in one of my games these two teamed,but they took it a little bit too far. they said check blue. they tottaly got away with it ,even after I reported it. I know that because one of them was in my games reacently