Solution to the problem of playing to get 2nd/not playing to get 4th/playing for 3rd

To make 2nd-4th lose equally and HEAVILY - for example, for 4 people with the same rating, if 1 wins, they win 100 but if the other 3 lose they lose 33.3 each. If it doesn't work, make the loss heavier, for example winner wins 150 while losers lose 50. This will make sure that everyone plays for 1st as the win is HUGE and everyone will want to play for the huge win. If people are still complaining, make the wins bigger and the losses bigger, so that more people will want to win and not lose. Also the losses are HEFTY, so everyone will play for 1st. No more playing to avoid 4th, No more gifting points to an undeserved 2nd, No more playing for 2nd or 3rd! 

it will make rating more unstable and less reliable.

If you are 2000, and you lucky and you win 6 games (or you win 7 and lost 1), you get 2300, but your real level is still 2000; and you will play with others 2300 players and they will trust that your level is 2300. (and you will lose)

Or, vice versa, you have 2000 rating and you unlucky so you lost 6 games (that's more probable) and you have 1700, but your level is 2000, than you will squash the others 1700 players.

This system will be more dangerous

Danger is fun. Players who aim for 2nd every game, knowing that their hold over 2nd may give them a chance of winning 5% of games, ruins almost every game.

then what should be the solution? Your +0.5 for 2nd might work, but it only encourages 'playing for 2nd'. Also, i know that this has got nothing to do with the thread, but why did you block me!!!!!! I wanted to post on one of your threads about noobs entering anonymous games but u blocked me!!!

Back to the topic. We should have an extra game mode, which I have described already in #1. We will call it 'Hard Solo'. There will also be a 'Regular Solo', and probably make losses heftier for the higher rated, so that ratings don't continue inflating, and wins greater for the lower rated, so that we don't have negative ratings.

are you on drugs?

Yes, have ratings negative, so 0 would actually be high up on the leaderboard

the LOSS is H U G E too

lol, NO! I'm not on drugs. I know it might cause wildly inaccurate ratings, but ratings are already inaccurate. Just look at a 2400 playing like an idiot! or even a 2600.

that gap used to be 2500ish and lower before the merge
big yikes 

bruh use math that's pretty much the same as +3,-1, -1, -1, just over inflated and would make rating like pointless - you would basically win 400 rating points every time you win and lose 133 when you don't. so much fluctuation, it would be very easy to win a couple times and instantly like 2000 over rated. 

if 2600's are idiots, play 2700s ez. At least this way people can tell somewhat who to trust, whereas with what you suggest you won't be able to tell whether or not to trust a 4000, something that's not even humanly possible with the current rating system.

Literally solo but 100 times worse