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)
@Daniel1115
This proposal format was the winner in the previous poll, anyway at this moment it is not in participation, so don't worry, anyway I invite you to read my previous post again, especially where I say this:
>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
I also agree with what they say: Spacebar, Indipendenza and Neoserbian.
- "play to avoid 4th" , it is bad for the good quality of the game.
- Whichever system rating punishes the 4th the most, automatically forms passive opposite in the 4 player stage, and lets their opposite die.
- my proposal punishes the 4th and the 3rd equally.
- the 2nd is not a prize, because it does not gain or lose points.
Daniel, For this reason, I would like you to analyze well before referring to me here. Please see carefully everything I indicated in the previous post.
Now I even realize that we are not so distant in our opinions and the proposals are not very different, it is something that we all reach a middle point where we can all agree on something, and not continue to be so divided in the opinions in general.
I feel that we can still reach a good consensus.
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.
---
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.
1) Imo Neo has proven himself consistently over the years to be a top player at both ffa/solo
2) If the way the game was played at both rating systems was identical, then there would be no reason to change it either way since it has no impact on the game. Being good at the 4p stage doesnt mean not getting 4th, since getting 4th can just be bad luck with opposites (and then who the flank players target). There are other ways (other then not getting 4th) where one can show off being better at this stage.
I would agree with Neo that the 3 -.5 -.5 -2 promotes avoiding 4th significantly more. The point is that you lose significantly more if you get 4th so you will accept lesser winning chances if you can get to the 3p stage (then with the 3 -1 -1 -1 system). The possible rating loss in fact is a 4x change from 3rd->4th as opposed to a 1x change from 3rd->4th.
I think getting eliminated first is punishing enough in the 3 -1 -1 -1 system, since your winning chances drop to 0, you dont need much more. Sure your rating doesnt update as much as with a 4th in the other system, but I think we should care significantly more about players ability to get 1st more then about how good they are at "not getting 4th".
The 3 -1 -1 -1 system is a lot more punishing. Every 4 games you need to win 1 to not lose rating (with equal rated opposition). In the 3 -.5 -.5 -2 system its a lot easier to maintain rating if you avoid 4th since you now only need to win 1 in 7 games (again vs equal rated opposition). Im a fan of more pressure on getting 1st.
>>> Radon wrote "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."
If I understand correctly, this sounds like a big reason for those who want to go away from 3 -1 -1 -1 ( i.e. that it is too punishing). But I don't think that its hard to preserve rating is a bug, its a good feature. Trying to insulate losses to protect against bad players doesn't seem like a good solution when the rating system is in place for the highest levels of play (and is there to promote the best play). So I don't think we should hurt the gameplay for high level matches to cushion rating losses when there are big rating mismatches (which will always cause problems).
One big change that 3 -1 -1 -1 has on the 4p stage is that one wants to be much more careful with what situation you are in (points, material and king safety wise) when going into the 3p stage, since you may not be better off then in the 4p stage. Due to the magnitude of the rating change this kind of assessment is much more significantly warped with the 3 -.5 -.5 -2 (since 4th is so much worse then 3rd).