Variants Poll: What rating system do you prefer?

Hello 4 Player Chess players!

The discussion about rating system has been conducted by admins and 4PC experts for many months already. And now we are pleased to inform you that we have finally reached a certain consensus. However, we would like to be sure that our decision does not go against the interests and desires of the community, and for this reason we're running a special poll on the variants server. All FFA players who belong to at least one of the categories listed below will receive a poll when the variants page is loaded.

What does it mean?

Option 1.  Keep +3 -1 -1 -1

A player who gets the 1st place in a game earns 3 wins, and each of the remaining players receives 1 loss. For example, if a player wins a game and receives 24 points, each of the remaining players will lose 8 points. This is the current system that doesn't reward playing for 2nd and doesn't punish 4th.

Option 2.  Change to +3 -0.5 -0.5 -2

A player who gets the 1st place in a game still earns 3 wins, however, 2nd and 3rd places receive only 0.5 losses, and 4th gets 2 losses. Given the same example as above, where 1st place receives 24 points, in this case second and third places will lose 4 points and 4th will lose 16 points. This is the proposed system that is more similar to FFA and still doesn't reward playing for 2nd, but it does punish 4th.

Note

The examples are theoretical as they are considered under ideal conditions where the ratings of players are equal.  Please keep in mind that due to the morphing system this is only applied to high-level games (where the average rating of players is high). In games where the average rating is low, or close to 1500, the +3 +1 -1 -3 system will be kept in either way. For more information about rating system, check out this wonderful post.

How the polls work?

Q: Is it anonymous?
A: Yes. However, some players data, such as rating, may be used for statistics.

Q: Is it possible to view, change or cancel selected option after voting?
A: No.

Q: How much time do I have to vote?
A: Polls duration may vary, however, this poll will last 1 week.

Q: Why can't I see the poll?
A: Each poll has a target group of players determined by players rating. Only this group of players can see the poll. If you are a member of such group according to the table above, but still don't see the poll, please reload the page. Polls are only loaded when the page loads.

Q: Is there a way to see updates on the voting results?
A: No. However, in some cases, after voting is completed, the admin team may publish the results.

Just interested, am I allowed to vote from my second account that also fulfills the target criteria above?

Obviously you are not.

why only 2200+ players can participate to the pool? 

Because for lower rated games both rating systems are very similar. The big difference is for 2400+ games. Below 1800 there is no difference at all, it's +3 +1 -1 -3 for both.

By the way, this is what it looks like

Is it too late to add a "don't care/unsure" button? You don't want people who don't care skewing the results.

-----

You could consider adding an optional comment box, though that may be mildly put-offing (another thing to do?!) for some people if that makes sense. Also would make it a bit cluttered probably.

Oops, sorry you weren't privy to the discussion and debate over which rating system should be chosen.  But know we did look at many various rating systems, and these two were the main contenders that emerged.

thanks appreciate it

Both options SUCK. But if you guys insist on ignoring players like myself, Radon, LosChessquire, and I think also Martinaxo if I am not mistaken and other high rated players   who do want to see + points for 2nd, then I would definitely prefer the less bad option of having 4th place lose the most points. 

As I have stated many times before in other forum posts I understand the rationale for not awarding points for 2nd. There are times where a player can opt for the "lazy" route and play for 2nd. But in my opinion the pros of awarding 2nd FAR outweigh that problem of "playing for 2nd". 

For one thing, if people don't have a path to 1st but can still get 2nd, it motivates them to stay in the game longer and be of use to someone to help them get 1st. Otherwise they will resign earlier and that is not something you want in a game like FFA. 

The rating system that I would really love to see, and others have agreed with me on this, is closer to what we had in the beginning where there was a greater difference between 2nd and 3rd.  I would love to see +15-20 for 1st, +4-5 for 2nd, -4-5 for 3rd, and -15-20 for 4th. I think it would be better to have a close battle between 2nd and 3rd where both players have avoided the big point loss of 4th but there is still an 8-10 point rating riding on the outcome. That would make EVERY point matter in the endgame. With both options offered that doesn't exist and leaves an empty feeling when the game is done. 

The last thing regarding the rating system I will comment on is the importance of last place losing the most points. Like I have said before in other posts, if you lose 1st you deserve to lose the most rating points. In the good old days of FFA it was a great feeling of accomplishment to team up with usually your opposite and checkmate an opponent early. Even if in that instance the rest of the game went badly and you end up 3rd, you still had a very satisfying game knowing you played well in the beginning and avoided last place. That feeling is DESTROYED by having 2nd-4th losing equally. 

One final note is that I don't how you guys think that you are not making a "decision that does not go against the interests and desires of the community" when you don't even offer the option of returning to the old rating system, much  less increasing the difference between 2nd and 3rd as many people have voiced their desires for. You guys have done a hatchet job on FFA and this game deserves a lot better. 

The sheer fact that only like 900 like players can actually vote on this poll was more than enough to get me to quit 4pc. 

What I'm getting is that people under 2200 and 2100 in those categories don't matter apparently. 

As much as I wanted change in the rating system, seeing this topic was just a huge blow. 

You guys can argue with me all you want, but you know well that this is just biased and can't say it's anything else. 

Unless the community is ok with the meta likely (or potentially) changing to "opposites team till the end," I don't see how 2nd: + can be the rating system

Because for lower rated games both rating systems are very similar. The big difference is for 2400+ games. Below 1800 there is no difference at all, it's +3 +1 -1 -3 for both.

That's why 

@GoldCoinCollector

>other high rated players   who do want to see + points for 2nd,

Nobody wants + for second, not even Radon. Some didn't mind the 0 0 for 2nd and 3rd.

There is almost complete consensus that 2nd and 3rd must be the same, because anything else just leads to people playing for 2nd place. We've been there already, and it was the reason we changed 3 1 -1 -3 for high level games in the first place. if 2nd > 3rd, then opposites will continue to team 3way, knocking out the other side player, both content to gain rating, and very often they will purpously tie for points to share the +ratings. It makes FFA almost 100% like teams (as it was for a while before we changed to 2nd=3rd).

>In the good old days of FFA it was a great feeling of accomplishment to team up with usually your opposite and checkmate an opponent early. 

The truth is that the vast majority of players (and pretty much everyone <2000) do not like that FFA = Teams at all. They don't want to play teams, they miss the "good old" FFA as it used to be before players discovered teaming with oppo is the best strategy, and as it is still played at low levels. The most frequent complaint we get is "ban those cheating teamers" and "there is a teams mode for those who want to play teams". Granted these complaints come from lower rated players who don't understand it's just the best strategy, however these are the majority of players.

When was the last time you played again?

So it's perfectly fine for you to make an incorrect statement? This ain't 1-sided, consider who the child is here.

Speaking from my point of view, I'm surprised that not a lot of people are in support of simply making FFA and Solo a choice again; having an adaptive system or a single system is impractical, and nobody has been able to come up with a favorable 1-size-fits-all solution...

If someone wants to change up the FFA and/or Solo formula, I wouldn't mind, but not having at least something resembling them both at the same time is kind of weird, and it's not like they would be under a different rating either.

Making a statement on behalf on another person and assuming information and using those to create directed insults is always incorrect. In addition, I find it possible that you are deflecting the blame against you (who has not played a single 4P Rapid FFA game in 40 days, compared to Jeremy's 28). 

@GoldCoinCollector

That the second place wins points?, it is not a good option for me.

My proposal that was very well voted in the community was this and i will sincerely stand firm with my approach, and the current statistics confirm it:

My proposal, 2 options:

✅ Red: 23,5%
1st: +2 wins |    +3 wins
2nd: 0 draw |      0 draw
3rd: -1 losses |   -1.5 losses
4th: -1 losses |   -1.5 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.
8.- A rating system, which not only affects the 4th, the loss must be assumed by the 3 losers equally, or at least 2 players, which in this case would be the 3rd and 4th, since this would help us to avoid passive opposites in the 4 player stage.

Notes:
- 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. 


My final decision regarding the final vote:

- The ranking system is directly related to the form or style of play that you must have.
- Most of the voters are quality people who represent for me the great mass of players.
- I expected that what we decide internally would be as close as possible to what our community prefers, above our own opinion, but it was not the case, which is unfortunate in my view of this situation. My expectation was totally contrary to my reality and my proposal was not successful internally. I guess I should know how to lose and just accept it.

However, I want to thank the developers for the option to incorporate the Poll tool in the lobby and allow new votes, this is already in operation and already has more than 100 votes, which far exceeds my first Poll, this initiative is greatly appreciates and makes it more democratic and transparent.

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.

1st: 3 wins
2nd: -1 losses
3rd: -1 losses
4th: -1 losses

So this led me to make a new decision and that is that since I do not see a real option for a solution, I prefer to abstain from voting. I have always been very transparent in my opinion and thinking, especially when it comes to a very important matter like this. My decision is legitimately valid and it is important that you know it.

Anyware the option +3 -0.5 -0.5 -2 , It has high chances of winning, but it does not represent my way of seeing and understanding this game, that is why I did not participate in this last vote.

Regardless of the rating system that is chosen, I will compete in the same way, I have been able to be successful with both the previous system and the current one as well. Therefore we will keep the same enthusiasm to compete!

See you in the next battle!

@martinaxo

It looks like I was misinformed about where you guys stand on 2nd place. I have proposed increasing the difference in 2nd and 3rd to + or - 4-5 before in posts where I have expressed my disdain for the solo rating and you and Radon did not respond to that point specifically so I was mistaken in thinking that you were closer to me in agreement on that issue since you guys don't like solo rating system either. Having any place lose equally is just wrecks the game for me. I absolutely hate it. 

As I have said I understand the rationale of not awarding points for 2nd. My motive in awarding points for 2nd is not "taking the easy way out" to gain points, but to have every point count in the endgame.