Variants Poll: What rating system do you prefer?

@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. 

Voted pure Solo 3 -1 -1 -1.

For me 3 -0.5 -0.5 -2 doesn't make any sense for 2 reasons:

a) it is very easy (especially for G) to finish 4th simply because the opp played passively, and I don't find it is fair,

b) ANY system punishing 4th too much vs. 3rd conducts to some perverse undesirable effects: players are pushed to "play to avoid being 4th" instead of being pushed to "play to win". It is bad for the quality of the game and it is unfair for those who can't win (whereas they objectively should) simply because someone crashes into them in order to get necessary points to avoid the 4th place. Definitely bad for all.

personally i fully agree with indi, i think "play to avoid 4th" is bad for the game.

fyi, so far 32 2600+ players have voted 15 : 17

I completely agree with indi and Justin
I'd like to add that even if the change happens / occurs I still think we should keep the solo rating system, sth like 2600+ or 2800+ because we also had high rated players, like someone from Armenia for example *cough* cough* who kept farming and tried to push their own opinion how 2nd shouldn't lose much (-0.5 fits perfectly there, although I'm totally against it and I think that the 3 -0.5 -0.5 -2 won't stop teaming) just for their own benefits. I think that we just need to create a game suitable to all the players including 1500s because they're players as well. Radon was right by saying all ratings should be reduced by 800 points. Why? Because those high rated players like 3000+ can get out with that and keep their rating above 3000 constantly by getting -0.5 for 2nd place. Keeping the rating system solo or to some extent, let's say 2800+ it would prevent high rated players from abusing the rating system, it will also reduce their rating naturally. I mean, we all know how and when the player I mentioned earlier got to 3000 rating for the first time maybe 2nd ever after valger. It happened in a broken rating system (time period) when hyper players got to 3000 easily that was after we had a 3000 player in bullet. The question is do you want 3000 players or the World Championship competitive format?

There's also WTA +4 -0.75 -1 -2.25

Greetings to all 4pc fans!

I promised myself that I wouldn't comment much on the happenings on the forum, but this topic is extremely important, so I have to join the discussion. 

Why is it important (actually the most important)? Because it will determine the future of playing and understanding this game!

For the future of this game, in my humble opinion, the starting position is less important. Omi, old standard or something else - for each starting position, a theory will develop over time. The only important thing in this matter is to make an effort and choose the most balanced starting position, whatever that was, and don't change it. I haven't studied all the starting positions and I don't consider myself competent to advocate a certain position, so I leave the decision on that to more experienced and expert people - I would just like your to come to a solution as soon as possible because, now,  we waste time not developing a theory. ( I'll give you an idea on this matter and I won't interfere any more - maybe the best position is the one where the green will survive the RY attacks the most without oppo help!?!

Why SOLO rating should stay? Two main reasons:

1. We all know that, at the beginning, the most important thing is to reach the 3 players stage. Then the real fight begins. Also, we all know that without the help of your oppo, you have no chance to survive this stage no matter how good player you are.

You will agree that there is a lot of luck involved here - will you be green at computer pairing and will your oppo help you?

This brings us to the main question: WHY WOULD YOUR OPPO HELP YOU???

In SOLO - it doesn't matter if you are second or last and in the initial phase you are fighting for a better position, the lead in points or a free side. All experienced players know that all this is important, but it is not decisive because in the 3 players stage some other rules apply - the balance of power. So the motive to help your oppo is a slight advantage in the rest of the game.

In FFA ( or where the last loses the most ) - i have absolutely no reason to help oppo! Why? 

Because the fear of losing most of the points is much greater than the gain I would have with the above advantages. In fact, it's in my best interest not only to not help my oppo, but to attack him and rush his fourth position. Remember, the first and only goal in the 4 player stage will be, over time, to destroy the unfortunate green or whoever the BY choose to attack! This component of luck is what I don't like at all and it is precisely this that is reduced (not eradicated) if it doesn't matter whether you are second or fourth!

To conclude: in both systems, the first goal is to reach the 3 players stage, of course.

- in SOLO rating system it is preferable to cooperate with your oppo to achieve that goal due to better position etc.

- In FFA, I have no interest in helping my oppo because the fear of losing points is much greater than the benefit of a good position in the future!

Bottom line - luck has a much bigger impact on the game than player skill! That's what I'm fighting against!

2. REASON : As we all know, this game is a game of patience, concentration, emotions are deadly, etc.

If the second and third places are losing min points, it is much more likely that they will give up before time or give the victory of their own accord for reasons known only to them, etc.

They will simply give up the fight if they don't like something, even a little bit, and thus ruin the game for those who enjoy it! How many times has this happened to you, be honest? You play for an hour and you eat someone's bishop or pawn and they get angry and go for your suicide! Is he injured or is everything not developing as he would like?!? Others are trying to win so it annoys him?! He trusted that player from the beginning and was annoyed that he betrayed him?!? Or some other stupid reason?!? Or CHILDREN'S REASON (as I called it). It doesn't matter to them because they will lose min points and they will "teach a lesson" to the one who bothered them for some reason of their own!

Let's be clear - this happens all the time in the SOLO system, but with one important difference - THOSE WHO DO IT WILL NOT BE HIGH RATED PLAYERS ANYMORE!

I know several "highly rated players" from the FFA period who are no longer that, because of this way of playing and thinking. They lose more points in SOLO rating system with that behavior. 

In my opinion, the real enjoyment of this game, the enjoyment of everything it has to offer, is: looking for balance, turning off emotions and patience. All highly rated players follow these rules and that's why this game is interesting! I have always enjoyed games where these professional qualities come to the fore. Those games where someone gets angry because of stupidity and gives someone a win and thus ruins an hour of your time... I despise those childish reasons and they have no place in highly rated games! And the FFA system, where second and third lose min points, exactly favors such behavior, because such players will still be in the top and will continue to spoil the game for others!!!

These are the two main reasons why the SOLO rating system should not be changed.

As some of you know, I have been playing this game passionately for 4.5 years now and all my experience so far, gathered in thousands of games, has formed this opinion of mine. I believe that I am absolutely right in favoring this rating system because I have confirmed it countless times in practice and theory. I really love this game and I consider it very promising and I want to contribute to its improvement. To be honest, I'll play it whatever the rules are, begrudgingly, but that's love!

And one last thing - remember, just because there are more proponents of one rating system doesn't necessarily mean they're right!

Thanks for reading.

*making that 4th is not punished and hence 2nd loses more*

High rated players are leaving because of unfair rating system and can't play anymore because they lose too much. Players resign early because realize they have no chance to get 1st and hence there is no point to continue playing. Game without 4th being punished is a joke.

*making that 4th is punished and hence 2nd loses less (or even wins)*

High rated players are playing again (yes!!) and keeping their rating above 3000 constantly by not losing much for 2nd place. It's finally almost FFA we're all used to! The game outcome depends on your opponent and FFA turns into Teams.

---

We cannot make the rating system perfect for both parties. Their values and ideas about the quality of the game are completely different. Our proposal is just the golden mean, which we came to after a very long discussion and analysis of many rating systems and criteria for evaluating the quality of the game. It most optimally corresponds to the greatest number of criteria for the game quality.

The argument that we don't play because of not being able to attain our ratings I have already debunked with @AnotherShortStory. Players are free to support whatever rating system they want however any arguments pertaining to us trying to pick a rating system that is only in the interest of the top players is ludicrous. Most of you who complain and blame the system on how you were or were not able to do certain things almost always having glaring holes in their play that they don't bother wanting to address and instead find a scapegoat.

I hoped that that accounts run to 3018 in 29 days from scratch in the new rating system would demonstrate how it is still doable in the current system if you are good enough which 99.99% of you obviously are not but apparently you are more than willing to say things like "oh no one can reach that".

Neo's comments regarding FFA favouring him wanting to avoid 4th at all costs and mate his opposite just shows a pure lack of understanding of optimal strategy and nothing else. As much as I respect Neo as a person his agenda is very clear and very bias towards a system that favours his rating gain. The argument would have much more substance if he had demonstrated equally high levels of performance in the old system.

---

The proposed new system is the best compromise that has been come up with after several months of heated discussion regarding the topic. It is not my preferred option but it is amicable and takes us all one step further to the game being in a position that people will want to come back to (namely opening position issues).

Hey‼ You can't say that 1800- players dœsn't care rating system!

I have 1799...  😣  😥

It is correct that +3 -0.5 -0.5 -2 might disencourage playing for the 2nd place, but it, worstly, will make the game dull, encouraging stubidity, more stratigic play and pieace ornamintation rather than take chances and tactics.

I am totally with +3 -1 -1 -1, but I am expecting +3 -0.5 -0.5 -2 to win, because how many people use their mind in ffa instead of piece decoration around the king and just waiting passively. 

I'm quite surprised by your comment Radon - to say I don't understand the "optimal" strategy of this game's after playing so many games and staying in the Leaderboard of 4pc continuously for 4 years!?! How did I reach second place at the first World Championship 4 years ago? 

But ok, if you think so...

I expected from you counter arguments to my stated views but instead I got disparagement...but ok.

But accusing me of fighting for a rating system that suits me?!? That's hilarious! Well, in the SOLO rating system it is 3 times more difficult to get points than FFA!!! Let me remind you : in SOLO you have 75% chance to lose points and in FFA 25% !!! And I prove myself in harder SOLO variant and not in FFA so my opinion about this topic should not take as relevant?!? By what math did you come to that conclusion, please tell me? :)

For your information, and for all those who want to know, I have not played FA for years (except when I have to because there are no other games) for one reason only - because it is a game for beginners and not for experienced players. From the beginning, and even now, this rating system is intended for beginners who are just discovering 4pc and only when they gain experience can they play the game for adults - SOLO! I listed the reasons for this claim in the previous post, reasons that you did not refute except for an attempt to discredit the person who stated them.

I didn't mean to comment on your achievement with the other account (which you so gladly refer to and which only proves that you are a good player and nothing more), but considering that you think that only you are able to do it (99.99%) and that it gives you the right to think that you are the greatest authority today... I have to disappoint you - I did something similar 4 years ago! (and at the same time, I wasn't on some holy mission, I did it as a joke).

The story goes like this: 4 years ago Neo was second on the leaderboard (behind Hest I think) and then, he was satisfied with that position and, of course, played just enough games to stay in that place. But since Neo got so addicted to this game he wanted to play some casual games again, from the beginning, and enjoy himself again. And ...he created a new account of course! (considering that he did not break the rules because he had no intention of playing with himself or cheating in any other way). A few weeks after opening the second account, Neos second account (Spartacus) reached the 8th place on the Leaderbord!!! JUST A FEW WEEKS OF OPTIONAL, RELAXED, NO HOLY MISSION - GAMES! And then evil uncle Luke came and banned Neo's second account and warned him not to do that (that's how I met Luke - he can confirm all this).The End

How many of you have a story like this and how many of you got on the Leaderboard with another account? I'm sure, anyone who wanted to, from the top players, could do it!

You wanted to prove that it is possible to reach a certain rating in the SOLO system (which no one disputes, every experienced player can do the same if he plays often enough). But let me ask you something: how long would it take you to achieve that in the FA rating system??? I'm sure much faster and easier, right?

Therefore, if the answer is yes, everything you wanted to prove becomes meaningless! Think about it everyone! That is also the basic remark about inflation in FFA - Once achieved rating is hard to lose if you are a good player. Just list the games you've played and single out the ones where you came in second and third - you'd lose almost nothing on them! And you will see that, in fact, you have not proved anything (except that you are a good player)

And finally, remind me, who is in ninth place with a record of 6-2-2 from 10 games in your FFA league? Probably someone who hasn't proven himself in the FA ever, ha?

I never claimed to be the only one, 0.01% of the player base is (or was) still a sizeable amount of players. I have 0 doubt players like Cha, Rojo, Hest etc could do it. The only reason I bring up the account is as proof that these ratings aren't unattainable in the current system.

You argue that the optimal strategy is to ensure you don't get 4th place in the FFA rating system at any costs as per your above statements which I simply believe to be completely untrue. The way in which you approach both Solo and FFA should be identical, you are always incentivised to work with your opposite to eliminate a side players including sacrificing queens etc for them. The claim that it is 3x harder to earn rating in solo once again makes little sense because in the old system you lost 3 times as much for 4th than you do currently for 2nd/3rd so if you perform exactly the same placement wise in either mode you will have the same net rating change on average with the difference being all the loss came from the 4th places. The systems where 4th place loses more encourages players to both understand there are different stages to the game (4p and 3p) but also to appreciate that FFA is a game requiring a well rounded 4PC player to be competitive at. The starting position + rating system changes means you can essentially neglect learn basic teams and still rise through the ranks whilst no top player in the old system didnt have to get good at every aspect of the game (which is what they should all strive to be). 

I am not the foremost authority on the matter however, arrogantly or not, I am convinced how an effective system should work and we currently are not close to there. Solo cannot work without every player being extremely strong at the game and it is a system that punishes the better players who are on the receiving end of weaker players poor decisions in the 3 player stage. Last I checked we weren't all FFA versions of stockfish so the system just does not work.

To answer your question re whether I would do it quicker or not in the old system I cannot possibly tell because I wont get the chance to try but even if I did it slower it wouldn't therefore mean that solo is easier because that is not how statistics works.

The core issue with Solo is that 4th place loses the same as 2nd.  Why should the worst player lose the same as someone who finished closer to winning the game?  We end up with passive players who shall remain nameless who either watch their opposite die, or join in on the attack and attempt to mate their opposite to get to the 3 player stage quicker. 

This is one of the reasons we made the League 1st = +3, 2nd & 3rd = +1, and 4th = 0.  The key is 2nd = 3rd.

In the 3 player stage, it discourages playing for 2nd, because 2nd & 3rd don't have much to gain, only 1st does, but there's a clear distinction with 4th.  The worst player in the game should always be punished more, why shouldn't this be the case?  If the issue is that green is weak, then perhaps the New Standard position needs to be reconsidered so ALL Queens aren't lined up to mate the Kings in as little as 2 moves without playing forcing moves.  You can't just fix the rating system, without addressing the starting position, since Omatamix was not the starting position the community wants.  It's less than 20% according to the unofficial polls.

To take this one step further, the issue I see is that you're merging 2 different rating systems, and making them into 1 for what reason?  Why is FFA called FFA now, when it's eventually played as Solo? FFA was far more popular than Solo ever was before the merge, just keep the 2 modes separate and let us choose which mode we want to play.  Why can't we have this as an option?

Solo caters to less than 5% of the overall player base, but on its way to becoming a solo mode, it's a confusing mess trying to figure which mode you're playing under.  When playing non-Anon queues, the higher-rated player will get targeted based on their rating alone in key stages of the game.  Solo is supposed to prevent people from throwing in theory, but in practice, this is NOT the case. 

How were these the final two choices? They both suck. Here's what people actually want: https://strawpoll.com/polls/eJnv7X6zMgv/results

Then make it solo for lower rated players or 3 0 0 -3. Why would you ruin the game for higher rated players? We had a test with solo vs FFA, and solo was way way way way way way way less popular. Stop trying to bring it back

I think both options are good, personally. Solo has one winner and an emphasis on the three-player stage. +3 0 0 -3 has an emphasis on the four-player stage. option two works well because it has both.

---

I will say that, despite reading this forum and topic for years, I still do not get the hate for solo.

This update is probably not going to bring back players. I don't know how much that can happen, period

4pc needs to decide if the solo product is inferior or unpopular. We know it is worse with the sample: i.e high-rated players who played In 2021. But is it worse with the population: i.e the hypothetical strong players who will join 4pc in the future? 

If A, then 4pc should go back to FFA. If B, then 4pc needs to decide if it wants to continue to pursue dormant high-rated players (the only way, I think, is to go back to 3 0 0 -3) or decide that is the cost of putting out a better product.

+4 -1.05 -1.05 -1.9

the best rating system obviously is to punish 1st place for trying so hard and wasting 2+ hours to win a worthless game instead of being productive and doing homework!

Even though this is a small sample size, I bet this represents the larger player base accurately. 

Looking closely at the results we see that both FFA options are more popular than Solo.  Combining both FFA options, FFA has 4x as many votes as Solo, 16 - 4.   

This would be a good FFA points system inspired by Empty_k3's:  +3 0 -1 -2