I have requested in the administration, the activation of BY as an official standard.
It is a reality that Omatamix was never the solution to the problems, this current setup does not solve the real problems that are discussed today. Omatamix in the social voting is in last place.
With old standard we already lived the experience in the past and currently it is ongoing in the 4PC league, for those who are most fond of this setup and the same competition, in which I include myself because I like to compete, I do not do it for the setup OG.
Everyone knows that I have always considered it to be unbalanced, and the number of abortions with green pieces is significant, which led the previous administration to make the decision to change it to the new standard (omatamix).
This year with omatamix we have already had a few months of experience and the truth is that they are more than enough and it does not need to be the official setup.
With OG (old standard) I reached 2750 ELO, managing to beat the best many times, With Omatamix I am in the TOP 20 with 2679 ELO and many of the best are still present in the Leaderboard. I mean no matter the setup, your level should be very similar.
The difference today is that many players from the great base that existed have not returned yet.
Everyone here is aware that I have been one of the administrators who has been most active in this type of discussion both in public forums, as well as in internal administration.
These issues are of great importance to me and that is why I have a record and follow-up of all the threads that we have discussed all these months together, I, like you, want a definitive solution soon.
The social votes that we have carried out among all of us here, also give support to my proposals, which are in short:
- Users want to play BY as the official Setup with 50% and another 50% prefer OG (old standard).
- They want a different rating system, users do not want a rating system ONLY.
Therefore BY Setup deserves a chance to be known by all, I take the time to explore it, playing various games and notice the difference that exists, why can't others do the same?
I gave a lot of reasons why we should play BY, but I'm going to put them back here:
- Gives the feeling of being able to make multiple openings.
- Compared to the other setups, it doesn't feel forced, to make openings in terms of defense, I feel like you can open yourself up to more than one option.
- As for the initial aesthetics, it gives you an identical view to classic chess; And this is an important achievement, which I highlight in magnitude.
- Playing it immediately gives you that feeling of excitement.
I will sincerely stand firm with my approach, and the current statistics confirm it
✅ Red: 23,5% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -1 losses
If you prefer a rating system SOLO, then the one that is active now, is perfect and does not require any changes, because it solved the problem of high ratings when playing in lower level queues and your loss in points is very minimal, compared to how it was before.
@Indipendenza forgive me for including 2 different issues in this post, but they are very related in terms of the reason to bring back the large player base that we had and we were able to recur quickly and effectively on any day of the week and at multiple times. I also know that you are a fan of OG like many other players, but I consider it important that you know this setup as well.
I want to go a little deeper into the rating system and my proposal:
Ok, I will speak 2 important points and I will deliver my vote.
- Most of the voting people are quality people who represent for me the great mass of players.
- I hope that what we decide internally is as close as possible to what our community prefers, over our own opinion.
49 votes: Ranking System
My reflection and conclusion tells me that we want to play a system that is close to the model:
similarity of graph proposal: Red, Yellow and Light blue
Red: 24,5% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -1 losses
Yellow: 18,4% 1st: +1 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: 0 draw | 4th: -1 losses
Light blue 16,3% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -3 losses
The visions that we have internally as the majority is this, but it is a minority in the community.
similarity of graph proposal: Blue, Purple and Green
Blue: 12,2% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: -0.5 losses | 3rd: -0.5 losses | 4th: -1 losses
Purple: 22,4% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: -1 losses | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -2 losses (also similar to Current Version)
Green: 6,1% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: -1/3 losses | 3rd: -2/3 losses | 4th: -1 losses
If the final decision is going to be based and concentrated on the internal decision, my duty, coherence and logic would be to vote for what is closest to my approach and vision of the people, whom I went to consult personally on the ground.
the winning option would be, would be my Approach: Red: 24,5% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -1 losses
the winning proposal in similarity to a SOLO would be: Purple: 22,4% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: -1 losses | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -2 losses
Seen in the statistics, in the forums and in the low audience in the game rooms, there is a categorical rejection of the current ranking system.
In the following analysis that I deliver, it is based on my own perception of the matter, it is my own vision that is shown in the form of a graph. I try to be as objective as possible, both in the active proposal in progress, v/s my new Approach for FFA in what respects the ranking system.
My Formula Approach:
1st: 2 wins
2nd: 0 draw
3rd: -1 losses
4th: -1 losses
My argument thesis is:
1.- Decrease rating risk for high ratings. High scores (2900-3000) are so affected by losing, when they go down to play (2400-2500), due to lack of queues in their categories. which doesn't seem fair.
2.- This formula could solve the problem that exists with passive opposites. In this way, everyone would seek, not to be 3rd and not 4th either. being 2nd has no prize or punishment, therefore he will fight at all costs to be 1st.
3.- Making an alliance at the beginning of the game is something completely natural, given by the geometry of the chessboard.
4.- Play more offensive than passive.
5.- Games that are not eternal, and that are more dynamic and fluid, during a normal day.
6.- Minimal inflation.
7.- Allows to maintain the essence of FFA, with strategy, psychology, points, global material, position, etc. That in short, are components as important as the tactic itself.
- Second place is not a prize.
- The third and fourth must be punished equally, since in this way we prevent any color from letting its opposite die easily. In this way we will ensure that they are always an ideal complement, in the 4-player stage.
- Second place must not lose points, but cannot gain points either, and third and fourth place must lose the same number of points.
As I said before, this has never been implemented in 4PC history, my proposal is what the people in the forums poll prefer to play, the internal proposals only look like more than what we have, and it does not guarantee you 100 %, the return of the great player base that we had before.
At higher levels, everyone seeks to be first (1st). The games with alliance in the 4p stage will always exist inevitably, and finally the players who are "Throwers" also exist in a SOLO system, that has to do with another pathology.
I can't imagine playing 30-45 minutes or more sometimes in a game, to finally settle for 2nd place where I'll get ZERO points, I'll do my best to be 1st and score ELO points.
Comparison of proposals
1 y 2 Win | 3 y 4 lose : When second place wins points, definitely here if there is a conformism for second place, I would absolutely get it as a consolation prize and clearly we don't want that.
2 y 3 draw | 4 lose: Here people play to avoid 4th place and even promote letting their opposite die, this doesn't work either. And why should we punish the fourth place more? Saying why he proved incapable of knowing the best plays, is a totally subjective opinion.
1 win | 2, 3, 4 lose: This is what we currently use, but in an improved version for high ELO players, and it eliminates the risk of a huge loss. Here, however, there is disagreement from many users, and that is why we are still discussing it at this time. Alliance still exists, Throwers still exists, they are components or factors that are part of the 4pc.
1 win | 2 ZERO pts. | 3 y 4 lose they lose the same: This formula is absolutely viable, since it acts according to how the 4pc is actually played, adapting itself in the best way. What must be difficult is to configure this option in the system. Since I personally would like, for example, that a player who is ELO 2900, with another player who is ELO 2500 where he gets third and fourth place, loses exactly the same amount of ELO, but normally this does not work like this, since the system always It does it proportionally, but in my opinion I would like them to lose the same amount without exception, it would be fairer for all higher ELO players.
Internal voting is taking place, I hope they choose the most appropriate, or what we really need. At the very least, I always expressed my views transparently for everyone.
I want to relive that essence of FFA that was once so great, I hope they can make it.
see you in another battle!
, but as VP I would've been simply fired if I took that impacting decisions so lightly, with no extensive analysis and thorough decision-making.
The problems with the new set-up are that:
- there are MUCH LESS variance in possible moves and openings, and you're OBLIGED to play some moves, with the old set-up it was much richer,
- if you are G and RY play correctly, it is IMPOSSIBLE to survive if B is incompetent/passive/idiot, and it was not the case THAT much in the old set-up (of course it's a common problem for ALL set-ups, intrinsically, because of the configuration of the board, but I maintain that with the new set-up it is clearly much worse because in the old set-up it took more time for RY to do that and consequently G had a bigger life expectancy and B had more opportunities to wake up, etc.). It is ironic that the old set-up was removed because it was presumably "unbalanced" for G, but in fact now it's much worse for G,
- it is clearly ABNORMAL that some moves are forbidden because of the possible check on the 1st (!) move from your left.
In addition, it is perfectly clear now, 6 months after the known catastrophic change, that it was a wrong decision, and it is clear that many strong players don't come anymore because of that or are far from being as active as they used to be. It is very significant that this year World Championship had to be played with the old set-up, otherwise too many strong players were boycotting it.
Therefore I believe that the Admin team must have the courage to recognise that it had been a mistake and return to the old set-up as default. (But BRSTI and BYG, etc. should remain available for those who want to launch games using them).
NB: amigos, PLEASE do not pollute this thread with considerations about the rating calculation and about the default timing and about the arborescence and organisation of the game lobby, Ok? Thank you.