Suggestion: Time Out In Teams Mode

Just played 6 games in the Teams Mode with random teammates. In 2 games my teammates did not make the first move, timed out and I lost some rating points. In 1 game one of my opponents did not make the first move, timed out and I got some rating points. So, 50% of the games were spoiled.

These things are made completely wrong now:

1) A player is punished for AFK of his irresponsible random teammate. It is weird. He/she is not a friend, he/she was not invited. It is just a random person, one of 7 billion people living on Earth. This punishing is just wrong.

2) 2 other players get rating points without making a move. It is also not fair.

How it should work:

1) The AFK player loses rating points.

2) Rating of all 3 other players stay the same.

agreed

+1

True, but then wouldn't the teams be unbalanced? 2vs1?

Suggestion: if anyone of the players doesn't move at all, the game should be aborted, as should in free-for-all 4 players-chess, I think.

Of course the game should be aborted. But in addition irresponsible player should be punished.

+1

And a rating cap is even more necessary in teams than in FFA. Only that way playing with random players has any future in my opinion.

Then rating deflation may occur, because points are removed from the system. And some time in the future 1200 may became a rating indicative of a top-level player.

It is not a closed physical system, so the deflation will not occur.

It is a closed system in the sense that the average rating of all players is 1200. Your suggestion would make this average to become lower and lower.

Maybe.  It will indeed cause a deflationary effect.  But we've got inflation and deflation from people joining and leaving the rating pool all the time, and it's not entirely clear what the net effect of that will be over time; if that's a net inflationary effect, then maybe a bit of deflation isn't a bad thing.

No, it is not a closed system. A new player joined the club and voila 1200 points were added to the system from subspace. Then 4 players played a game, 2 of them got +, 2 of them got -, but the sum of those +'s are not equal to the sum of those -'s. For example, a result of a recent FFA game:

+19

+23

-9

-31

The system added 42 points and removed 40 points. So, the increment is 2.

There is no "the law of conservation of energy" in this system. The points come and go.

Another issue beyond deflation is that penalizing unwanted behavior with rating reduction, overloads the meaning of rating. Having a low rating would mean that your are either a weak player, or that you abandon games without moving too often. If such an overloading is a good thing, then what about losing rating when, for example, you are talking badly in the chat? Overusing certain words would make your rating to plummet! 

@BabYagun I was under the impression that the sum of +'s equals the sum of -'s. Your example shows that my impression was wrong.

I think you're mixing up things, @Skeftomilos. Abandoning games makes you lose. Therefore if you are a player who abandons early often, a low rating is an accurate representation of your performance.

@MateThief I am talking about abandoning games without making any move. As far as I understand people do it because they don't like their opponent's rating, or the color of their pieces, and they lack the option to abort the game. They don't do it because they dislike their position on the board.

I think the idea of punishment is good, also maybe if they do it too many times in a certain amount of time so suppose if you abandon 10 games in a period of five hours you get a bigger punishment, like not being able to play teams for a couple of hours.

 I have an idea: Adam should be able to control Ben's pieces if the time runs out so if Adam is skilled enough he can still win alone versus 2 players.

It is annoying.