Darksquareman wrote:
And anyone that has no teaming skills will play passively in order to survive
I still see that 2400-2900 is still fairly well correlated with teaming strength, at least better than solo was, in my opinion
Solo
Sort:
ChessMasterGS wrote:
LosChessquire wrote:
Why can't Solo be separate and have its own rating like it did before? They're 2 completely different modes.
Not really? And I don’t imagine using the same rating would do harm…
if they were not 2 different modes with totally different strategies, people would not be asking to have them both.
ironically, there is much more reason to have separate ratings between solo and ffa, than the separation between rapid and blitz for example
FourTheLoveoftheGame wrote:
Its not possible to make 2100+ or 2200+ games. It goes from 1950+ to 2350+ with nothing in between. Waiting times for higher rated games can be too long especially with the new solo option. Hopefully this can be fixed.
It's possible when your rating is closer to 100, instead of closer to xx50. 
FourTheLoveoftheGame wrote:
LosChessquire wrote:
FourTheLoveoftheGame wrote:
Its not possible to make 2100+ or 2200+ games. It goes from 1950+ to 2350+ with nothing in between. Waiting times for higher rated games can be too long especially with the new solo option. Hopefully this can be fixed.
It's possible when your rating is closer to 100, instead of closer to xx50.
No, its to do with the -1000 to -600. There is no -900 or -800 or -700 for some reason.
Oh yeah I see what you mean
I incorporate this mention also in this forum related to the new SOLO system function.
That's right, the main difference is that SOLO is characterized by having 1 exclusive winner and 3 losers in the game.
At present we are not playing FFA, since this is characterized by having 1 exclusive winning player, the second and third place do not gain or lose points, and only the last place loses points.
In the past, the possibility of finding a format where no player makes an alliance with the opposite was sought, that was never achieved, nor was it achieved with the new modifications, the strategic alliance with the opposite will always exist, for all the reasons that We have discussed in multiple forums.
It is indisputable, and it is for that very reason that many consider SOLO and FFA to be the same. Technically both rating systems that we have available today describe a SOLO rating system.
The original FFA rating system was eliminated many months ago, the only thing that remains of that is the name, nothing more, and the current way of playing at higher levels is the same as always, it is always a good strategy to make an alliance with the opposite.
You don't know how much I want, to play FFA again in essence, as it was before, and I take advantage of saying that the SOLO rating system that I prefer the most, is the one that allows the second, third and fourth to lose the same number of points equally ( 3, -1,-1,-1). I hope that in the future we will have that option available again and we can enjoy that beautiful experience again FFA.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
And anyone that has no teaming skills will play passively in order to survive