I AGREE
The rating earned/lost for getting second place is flawed
Sort:
You did not earn rating because 1 of your opponents was lower rated. You got the 2nd place earns rating formula because of average rating and you barely got it because it's only +0.17 which is nothing, close to 0 almost the same as losing rating just not getting anything. You were lucky to get it because one of your opponents was 2652, so...you just got a good formula because of that one higher rated opponent. I hope this helps
Feb 9, 2026
0
#4
if only was this flaw...
it's nonsense that 2nd and 3rd get the same points. this is a solo mode which is a completly different game mode with completly different strategies. not FFA where each position matters.
it's nonsense that 4th place is so penalized compared to 3rd.
does really deserve more merit reaching 3rd position over 4th, much more than reaching 2nd over the 3rd? that's ridiculous, and it simply makes much more sense the solo distribution, where the only difference is between winning or not winning, no matter if 2nd or 4th. in solo mode it completly make sense 2nd=3rd=4th.
top players want the solo mode to be the standard, i only would like they bring back true FFA where 2nd place is positive (and as you said, especially playing against stronger opponents). i don't care if they make solo the standard mode, i do not dislike that mode. but they ruined FFA converting it in a fake flawed solo mode just because FFA was the most played mode.
i wonder who should be asked, but please fix the FFA points. an alternative to +3 +1 -1 -3 could be +4 +1 -2 -3, giving more reward for winning, good motivation to not early resign when you can still get 2nd place but not 1st, and not giving that much motivation to play extreme defensive and passively to avoid an excesively negative 4th place (but +3 +1 -1 -3 was just fine)
ronarid960 写道:
if only was this flaw...
it's nonsense that 2nd and 3rd get the same points. this is a solo mode which is a completly different game mode with completly different strategies. not FFA where each position matters.
it's nonsense that 4th place is so penalized compared to 3rd.
does really deserve more merit reaching 3rd position over 4th, much more than reaching 2nd over the 3rd? that's ridiculous, and it simply makes much more sense the solo distribution, where the only difference is between winning or not winning, no matter if 2nd or 4th. in solo mode it completly make sense 2nd=3rd=4th.
top players want the solo mode to be the standard, i only would like they bring back true FFA where 2nd place is positive (and as you said, especially playing against stronger opponents). i don't care if they make solo the standard mode, i do not dislike that mode. but they ruined FFA converting it in a fake flawed solo mode just because FFA was the most played mode.
i wonder who should be asked, but please fix the FFA points. an alternative to +3 +1 -1 -3 could be +4 +1 -2 -3, giving more reward for winning, good motivation to not early resign when you can still get 2nd place but not 1st, and not giving that much motivation to play extreme defensive and passively to avoid an excesively negative 4th place (but +3 +1 -1 -3 was just fine)
they should take opponent's ratings into consideration
in one of my most recent chaturaji games i was playing against 2 2100+ players and i was only about 1680-1690 and i got 3rd place and lost like 8 rating so in my opinion the whole 4p variant rating system is flawed
Feb 9, 2026
0
#6
MAFAB_Mason wrote:
ronarid960 写道:
if only was this flaw...
it's nonsense that 2nd and 3rd get the same points. this is a solo mode which is a completly different game mode with completly different strategies. not FFA where each position matters.
it's nonsense that 4th place is so penalized compared to 3rd.
does really deserve more merit reaching 3rd position over 4th, much more than reaching 2nd over the 3rd? that's ridiculous, and it simply makes much more sense the solo distribution, where the only difference is between winning or not winning, no matter if 2nd or 4th. in solo mode it completly make sense 2nd=3rd=4th.
top players want the solo mode to be the standard, i only would like they bring back true FFA where 2nd place is positive (and as you said, especially playing against stronger opponents). i don't care if they make solo the standard mode, i do not dislike that mode. but they ruined FFA converting it in a fake flawed solo mode just because FFA was the most played mode.
i wonder who should be asked, but please fix the FFA points. an alternative to +3 +1 -1 -3 could be +4 +1 -2 -3, giving more reward for winning, good motivation to not early resign when you can still get 2nd place but not 1st, and not giving that much motivation to play extreme defensive and passively to avoid an excesively negative 4th place (but +3 +1 -1 -3 was just fine)
they should take opponent's ratings into consideration
in one of my most recent chaturaji games i was playing against 2 2100+ players and i was only about 1680-1690 and i got 3rd place and lost like 8 rating so in my opinion the whole 4p variant rating system is flawed
there depends a lot on the rating of the 4th player, i guess he was 1500, if he was also 2100+ you have lost like 2 or 3 with 3rd place.
in chaturaji the FFA is still fine, always +3 +1 -1 -3. it's also a main reason why i play FFA chaturaji
MAFAB_Mason wrote:
in one of my most recent chaturaji games i was playing against 2 2100+ players and i was only about 1680-1690 and i got 3rd place and lost like 8 rating so in my opinion the whole 4p variant rating system is flawed
That's because your Glicko RD was too high. It has nothing to do with the formula. If your glicko is 111, you win a lot of points, you lose a lot of points. If you play a lot of games, your glicko will drop to let's say 63. Even if you get 4th against high rated opponents, like you said 2 players 400 rating points above your rating. The outcome is not the same.
In 4 player free-for-all, if all of your opponents are higher rated than you, then in my opinion you shouldn't lose rating for getting second place. It's unreasonable to demand that someone beat all 3 higher rated opponents to not lose rating. For example, I lost rating for getting second place in this match where I was the lowest rated player, but in this match where I also got second place, I earned rating just because 1 of the opponents was lower rated than me. It doesn't make sense. The way the rating earned/lost per match is calculated seems flawed.