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".
The problem with giving people things to play for is that for ffa, if people arent playing for 1st they usually are ruining the game for everyone else. Hence with either system it is set up so the 3p stage gives 2nd=3rd. If you create a discrepancy players with who feel they have low winning chances will sometimes throw the game to get themselves 2nd (since they reason its better then 3rd).
4th place losing more or not depends on how much you think someone losing first should be punished. If you opposite is mediocre and the other two side players are strong at teams, you or your opposite have a good chance of getting 4th.
It also encourages more teaming then you would see otherwise if it was 3 -1 -1 -1, since then you want to make your position as good as possible before eliminating opposite, rather then taking risks yourself to make sure the opposite is gone (and thus ensuring no 4th). So for those who want to see less super hard teaming in 4p stage (past the opening) 3 -1 -1 -1 is better. I think to some extent it also further encourages players to play their best to the end since doing well in the beginning hasnt gained them anything (with 3 -.5 -.5 -2 there is a much smaller penalty for 2nd/3rd then 4th, so if you get tired of playing its easier to justify throwing the game).
EDIT: I see now that my arguments here were more or less echoed by spacebar, indi and neo.
My criticisms also apply to martinaxo's proposal and associated justification (for the 3 0 -1.5 -1.5 system)
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.
this poll will hardly affect you if you are -2200. Like, maybe if you are 2199 it'll feel a bit harsh but then you change it 2199 and ppl who are 2198 are upset. at 2000-ish level this will change hardly anything, because at that point you are closer to being 1800 than you are to being 2400. At the 2200+ stage you are playing plenty of games that have multiple 2400+ people in them, thus raising the average. This is because it is so rare to find a 2400/2500+ queue, so they don't play or just join a 2200/2100+ one. Therefore, as explained in the original post by @qilp ("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"), there is no reason for you to get upset about this arrangement.