I hate how you gave 4 options with 1st being +2 and the only different one is +4 I get that some players don't like to lose rating, but that's ridiculous. 4 player chess is going south. Playing the whole game just for +2 yikes. As I mentioned, your suggestion of +2 was probably considered because second was minus one third and 3rd minus two thirds, but there are other ways of making a balance between 2nd and 3rd and we should definitely stick to +3 anything else is just not worth it. +4 can be considered at lower level for beginners. I'd try to stick with Solo +3 -1 -1 -1 just so hard teaming doesn't happen every game and just so players are tending to play for 1st, play for the win, not farming. This is unacceptable, it's exactly what you just said, a bunch of players complaining in the forum and yet you are willing to change the whole rating system while we just got rid of teaming. Some players don't even know what basic FFA rating system WTM rating system and WTA rating system are...and you'd rather believe those players who barely have any knowledge then those who were here since the very start of 4 player chess. Sadge
🧐 Where are the players❓ ⚔️ Ranking System 🛡️Poll:
Teaming isn't eliminated in high level games, it's the high level games themselves that are eliminated. If you think that's a good thing, I don't know what to say.
I hate how you gave 4 options with 1st being +2 and the only different one is +4 I get that some players don't like to lose rating, but that's ridiculous. 4 player chess is going south. Playing the whole game just for +2 yikes. As I mentioned, your suggestion of +2 was probably considered because second was minus one third and 3rd minus two thirds, but there are other ways of making a balance between 2nd and 3rd and we should definitely stick to +3 anything else is just not worth it. +4 can be considered at lower level for beginners. I'd try to stick with Solo +3 -1 -1 -1 just so hard teaming doesn't happen every game and just so players are tending to play for 1st, play for the win, not farming. This is unacceptable, it's exactly what you just said, a bunch of players complaining in the forum and yet you are willing to change the whole rating system while we just got rid of teaming. Some players don't even know what basic FFA rating system WTM rating system and WTA rating system are...and you'd rather believe those players who barely have any knowledge then those who were here since the very start of 4 player chess. Sadge
in another forum you expressed this:
Gold Arena <2500 +3 +1 -1 -3
Platinum Arena 2500-2800 +3 0 -1 -2
Diamond Arena 2800+ +3 -1 -1 -1
I think, that also deserves to be studied, don't worry.
Teaming isn't eliminated in high level games, it's the high level games themselves that are eliminated. If you think that's a good thing, I don't know what to say.
you are responding to @At_d0sA_fNLt_Laris ?
I hate how you gave 4 options with 1st being +2 and the only different one is +4 I get that some players don't like to lose rating, but that's ridiculous. 4 player chess is going south. Playing the whole game just for +2 yikes. As I mentioned, your suggestion of +2 was probably considered because second was minus one third and 3rd minus two thirds, but there are other ways of making a balance between 2nd and 3rd and we should definitely stick to +3 anything else is just not worth it. +4 can be considered at lower level for beginners. I'd try to stick with Solo +3 -1 -1 -1 just so hard teaming doesn't happen every game and just so players are tending to play for 1st, play for the win, not farming. This is unacceptable, it's exactly what you just said, a bunch of players complaining in the forum and yet you are willing to change the whole rating system while we just got rid of teaming. Some players don't even know what basic FFA rating system WTM rating system and WTA rating system are...and you'd rather believe those players who barely have any knowledge then those who were here since the very start of 4 player chess. Sadge
I hear your concern. What about, however, the players who will always play for second place in the 3-player stage, even when they know it will lose them rating? The only way out in such a situation is to play for second as a high-rated player because you have more to lose. I think eliminating second place does not make the game better for this reason alone: Many players suicidally play for second or third. Having a no-loss second place controls for that.
Good morning dear,
If we talk about similar proposals, I would tell you the following:
Voting Poll Update:
Go to vote:
https://forms.gle/uwjPJeduok4MD1VA8
43 votes : Ranking System
72 votes : Setup Oficial
What Ranking System do you prefer in FFA? Option 2 New Approach
similarity of graph proposal: Blue, Purple and Green
Blue: 9,3% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: -0.5 losses | 3rd: -0.5 losses | 4th: -1 losses
Purple: 23,3% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: -1 losses | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -2 losses (also similar to Current Version) 👀
Green: 7% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: -1/3 losses | 3rd: -2/3 losses | 4th: -1 losses
similarity of graph proposal: Red, Yellow and Light blue
Red: 25,6% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -1 losses
Yellow: 20,9% 1st: +1 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: 0 draw | 4th: -1 losses
Light blue 14% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -3 losses
Note:
- In the first question many want to return to the traditional format of FFA, which existed before, However, in question number 2, there are a lot of answers that are assimilated to the current version. See graph color purple, mark a 23,3%.
- Again we have so far a technical draw, Whoever feels or believes, or is not sure of their vote, can review it again and modify their voting response, there is still time to do so.
Attentive to the comments of the 4pc community.
Dear 4PC Community!
There is a lot of discussion going on about the setup, the rating system and much other stuff.
I participated in most of these discussions but I want to sum it all up in one post here.
1. Who am I?
For those of you who still don't know me: My name is Michael T. Tieber and I am from Austria.
I started playing 4-Player-Chess when it was quite new and I rose to the top 20 right away and I've been there ever since. When I started there was only FFA and I never really became fond of Teams and stuck with FFA and Solo. I am one of 3 players who played all 3 Solo world championships. So I guess it is fair to say that I know a lot about this game and I understand it on a very high level.
2. How does 4-player-chess work?
Let me explain to you how 4-player-chess is played. I am going to break it down in reverse order we begin with how a game ends and work us backwards through the stages to the beginning of the game. This might seem a bit odd, but every stage makes more sense if you know what the goal of the stage is, so it makes sense to analyze later stages first:
How the game ends:
The game ends if only one player remains. But this player is not necessarily the winner because the player with the most points wins not the last remaining one.
2-player-stage:
If one player has a lead of more than 20 points it instantly ends due to "claim win". If the difference is smaller, it is often still not played out because one player has a significant material lead and the other player resigns.
3-player stage:
The goal of this stage is of course to create a winning 2-player stage. So either you go into the next stage with 20 points lead, or with a material lead that wins. In order to do so, you have to stop other players from achieving such a lead. So there is a constant change of alliances because if one player gets too strong you team up with the other player and attack him. So in the 3-player-stage, it should be easy for you to attack other players and hard for other players to attack you. Therefore you need a save king position and good piece mobility.
4-player-stage:
The most important thing here is of course to make it to the next stage. You can go into the 3-player-stage with less material because it will be balanced out anyways. In order to do so, you have to make sure another player is going to be checkmated and not you. This is the primary goal, but there is also a secondary goal: You want active pieces and a save king in the next stage. Geometrically your opposite is farther away than your flank players. So if one of your flank players is checkmated first you have a side where you can put your King and both players are far away from him and will have more difficulties attacking. Or you can push your pawns on that side and there is no player to stop them. While if your opposite is checkmated first, no matter in which direction you move your pieces, there will always be an enemy, and your pieces are not mobile.
Teaming
Considering this it is in both your and your opposites interest to checkmate a flank player and not your opposite. Therefore even in Solo early teaming is just a natural development because it is the best strategy to play for the win. And you can sacrifice a lot for that because the positional advantage in the 3-player-stage is more valuable than material.
3. Rating System
For the rating system, we can make a lot of different approaches. I want to focus on 4 of them and tell you what I think which rating system suits them best.
Fun
Different players enjoy different things about the game, but I think especially for new players it is important to have small successes right away so every new reached stage in the game should feel meaningful so there should be a different rating calculation for each placement.
I suggest the classical FFA rating +3 +1 -1 -3
Sadly this rating system runs into problems in higher elo because it can be a strategy to just play for 2nd. This would entirely change how the game is played because you can team with your opposite through the whole game. Take out one flank player, then the other one, and then either play it out, resign, or even share the win. Does not matter much because you always win elo, and those games can be really fast, so you don't have to play the long and difficult 3-player stage. This is actually how Teams was invented, and why the Solo rating System came, to prevent this.
Win
In the end, everybody wants to win the game, so there is one winner and three Losers.
The rating for this cause is of course the Solo rating +3 -1 -1 -1
This rating can be very frustrating if you almost win a game but not quite. Or if one player is not able to win the game anymore but does decide who wins. Then it's a coinflip for the other two players who wins and who loses and they often have hardly any influence on this.
This is emotionally draining even for strong players and really not what you want for a new player who is just learning the game.
Representative
It is a very valid point to state that the rating system should represent the way the game is played. If we look at what we described earlier there is one big winner who wins the game, one big loser, who did not make it to the 3-player-stage, and two smaller losers who were not successful in the 3-player-stage.
The rating system that is most representative in my opinion is the Radon rating +4 -1 -1 -2
Strategy
Both Solo and Radon rating run into the problem in the 3-player-stage that you sometimes end up in a position where you can't win anymore and you are just kingmaker. This is frustrating for all players and has an element of randomness. So to take out this Randomness it makes sense to make a difference between 2nd and 3rd place. But as we discussed in the classic FFA rating if 2nd place wins elo, there could be played for this.
So the rating I suggest is the Empty rating +4 0 -1 -3
I think all of these rating ideas make sense in some way. Classical FFA rating is not really suitable for high elo if you don't want to change the way the game is played but the others are all fine. All of these rating Ideas can be tweaked a little bit and all of them need to be scaled with the right elo factor.
Rating systems that I don't consider suitable for FFA are systems where the 2nd place wins more than 3rd and 4th but those places are equal such as +2 0 -1 -1 or +5 -1 -2 -2 Maybe there is an argumentation for these rating systems but I see none.
And totally inappropriate are systems where 1st and 2nd win equally or systems where 1st place does not win most but I don't think that anybody would suggest this.
4. Setup
The difference between the setups are King and Queen positions. As for 4 players the King can each stand on their left or their right, we have 16 permutations of the setup.
Half of them have some kind of symmetry and Half of them has not.
According to engines, the most balanced setup is with reds King on his left and all other Kings on the right. But I think symmetrical setups are more enjoyable. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I think the more Symmetrical the setup is the easier it is to adapt to different colors from game to game. So let's focus on the Symmetrical setups. But first let us talk about what matters about the setups.
Kingside
You want your King to be save from attacks. If you get a check from the left side other players know that you have to react to that, and can attack you easily. So it is beneficial to have your King on the right.
Diagonals
If queens are on the same diagonals as Kings you can create an attack by just moving a pawn without developing the queen. If Queens are on the same diagonals the opening of a Queen diagonal might stop other players from doing the same if they don't want to risk a Queen trade.
Sadly I am absolutely no Teams- and therefore no openings expert, so I can't go more into detail about what the strategic differences are in the opening. I just can tell you that later in the game the setup matters less and less, because in 3-player-stage totally different things matter, and there has been loads of movement on the board so it does not matter much anymore where the King was in the beginning.
Old Standard Setup
Red and Yellow kings on the right. Blue and Green kings on the left.
According to engines and also a lot of very strong players it is the most unbalanced setup. Green and blue have a huge disadvantage because they move later, their kings are on the left, and if red and yellow open with their king pawn, which is the most common opening, this opening is basically denied for green and blue. So they have to play more passive openings.
The Old Standard invert is already slightly better because the later moving "team" BG has their Kings on the right, but the denied king pawn is still a big disadvantage.
Omatomix Setup
All kings on the right
Is by far the fairest setup and easiest to play as you can play mostly the same opening as all players have the same setup. Still, engines favor other setups maybe because Kings and Queens are on the same diagonals which allows fast attacks and therefore gives benefit to earlier moving players.
The Omatomix invert is basically the same setup, but why you would want all kings to the left if having them to the right is better?
Bsrti-invert Setup
Red and Blue king on the left. Yellow and Green king on the right.
According to engines, it is the most balanced Setup that has some symmetry. I can't talk much about Bsrti, because I have not tried it yet. The Idea is that both teams have one king on the right and one on the left, so they are balanced. Later moving players have their King on their right which should decrease their disadvantage a little bit. The fact that each King has one Diagonal to a King and one to a Queen makes fewer early attacks possible than in the Omatomix setup. So maybe this is really the most balanced Setup
I covered Bsrti-invert instead of Bsrti, because according to engines it is more balanced because later moving players have the king to their right.
The 4th symmetrical Setup is similar to Bsrti and again I think the best version of these kinds of setups is the Bsrti-invert.
Personal Opinion
I like Omatomix best due to the consistency you can have in your openings. Some people state that Omatomix is boring and you always play the same opening. Well first, I play a different one, the Pegasus opening, and I am very successful with that, so there is obviously not that only line some players state there is. And 2nd, even if it were so, a good FFA game normally is more than 100 moves long. And only the first let's say 10 moves are the opening. So to say that Omatomix games are always the same and boring is an enormous exaggeration.
I really hope we won't go back to old Standard because it is the most unbalanced one and playing blue or green is just less fun. I know a lot of people wish it back because they are used to it. But sometimes you have to adapt. And we should really not go back to a worse setup only because we are too lazy to change.
Standard Setup
We are discussing a lot what the best setup is, but the question is, why do we need to decide? Can't we just let the user decides what he likes best?
The answer is, that we can let users decide, but there still has to be a Standard. Because if I just want to play a game I want to press the play button and play. So there has to be one setup preselected. And this will be played the most just because it is easy to select. That does not mean that all the other setups should not exist. And this is also true for rating systems and time controls. All the other systems can exist and can be selectable, but there has to be a Standard.
I would really like to have loads of setups to choose from. They can be played on the same elo. They should be shown in the same Lobby, of course with selection options like "only show Omatomix games". But every queue that is not Standard will take longer to fill up because Standard will be the most played one and therefore the one players are used to.
So this is why we are discussing so heavily the topic of what should be the Standard Setup. Because even if all the other setups are available it still influences us what setup will be chosen as Standard. Also because the world championship will be played on the Standard Setup.
Summary
For me, all of this is a very important Topic because 4-player-chess is my biggest passion and the world championship is the highlight of the year for me. I state that world championship games are better than sex.
I did not cover time controls but I heavily prefer increment and I really enjoy the 1|7 time format. I think the best Setup is Omatomix but I think I would also be fine with Bsrti-invert.
As rating system, of course I think the one I suggested, the Empty rating +4 0 -1 -3 is the best. But I can also live with Solo rating +3 -1 -1 -1, Radon rating +4 -1 -1 -2 and even high Standard +3 0 0 -3 is fine for me.
A huge Thanks to all of you who took the time to read my entire post.
I hope I was able to explain my opinions to you, and I hope you have the feeling what I'm saying makes sense.
Cheers
Michael
@empty_K3
Excellent illustration of this matter below I will deliver the final vote...
Dear 4pc Players
If we wanted to close the vote today, things would look like this:
51 votes
The winning proposals are:
👍🏼 Light blue: 15,7% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -3 losses
✅ Red: 23,5% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: 0 draw | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -1 losses
⚔️ Blue: 11,8% 1st: +2 wins | 2nd: -0.5 losses | 3rd: -0.5 losses | 4th: -1 losses
🛡️ Purple: 23,5% 1st: +4 wins | 2nd: -1 losses | 3rd: -1 losses | 4th: -2 losses
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
"But as you know, where the captain rules, the sailor does not rule".
I have gone out on the ground to listen to them and answer their complaints, I cannot do more, I only hope that the Gods accompany us in the next final decision.
I appreciate you as players, both my friends and my enemies, see you in an upcoming battle on the chessboard, which is where I like to fight the most.
Martinaxo
The current ranking system is the true and real reason why people have not played again.
Some time ago I talked about player categories in FFA and I'm going to bring it here again and we're going to name players by name too, and why?: because as we say in America Latina.
"I am not afraid of success".
0 a 1500 "Apprentice"
1600 a 1900 "Principiante" = Noob
2000 a 2300 "Gama Baja" = Competent
2400 a 2700 "Gama Media" = Superior
2800 a 3100 "Gama Alta" = Advanced Top Player
3200 a + "Experto" = Gran Maestro = GM FFA
I will name some players: "Gama Media Level"
scotfran20, ChessMasterGS, Mzambe, Pirannita4Cazador, LosChessquire, mfp1962, reynaldope, Holybull, Magicsteph, PepeFumigaciones, liquid-sun, pitifloo, NightLoveRaver, Rasen555, valengoghaze, Tarsmick, JustinD7, tacopower5, whatyousaidno, WDardoW, jomendez1, enriquemaldonado, 16danielinho16, anurag_b, Slayer950, KidBuuJohan, vigneshrocker123, kurtssj, salsaton, wilsonmar1, GoldCoinCollector, ZoDello, michael2304, mgcazares, Indipendenza, KatrinaQueen and me (martinaxo), among others; for me they are all excellent FFA players, and they are all "Gama Media Level".
- They all have their own unique style of play, I have seen none of them reach 2800. And if they have achieved it, the question is, how long have they managed to stay at that level?, Note that I am still talking about the ranking system before this one, which may not have been perfect, but it was accepted and very popular, and appreciated by most.
- The question you ask Typewriter44 Who is this basically everyone?/ is correct, who?, the players from the middle up, play to be first.
- To all these players that I am naming here, none of them play for second place, all of them seek to be competitive and to be first, of that I am sure.
I will name some players: "Gama Alta"
Radon, Illingworth, milrayitasmdqdiaz, Besher, Fiat147, Cha_ChaRealSmooth, carlosgabriel1234,
MoreMao, LiquidFyre, Riba, Grathieben, hest1805, HSCCCalebBrown, vrdtmr, RicharCG, neoserbian, KillerBishop8888, empty_K3, EyeoftheTiger1204, ccoppola, Typewriter44,
Darksquareman, LazyImp, jbolea, sumat777, Suneth, rojitto, among others; most of these players have not played in FFA again.
- It is also a reality, that many of them have not managed to reach 3000 elo, And if they have achieved it, how long have they managed to stay at that level?; Note that I am still talking about the ranking system before this one.
- The players that I have seen play with the current system are: neoserbian, hest1805, vrdtmr, Darksquareman, empty_K3, HSCCCalebBrown, MoreMao, LazyImp, rook6431, Typewriter44, and they have not achieved exponential ranking growth either, on the contrary, they have had multiple ups and downs in their rating.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ════ ⋆★⋆ ════ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Those who know me know that FFA is my passion and that my main accomplishments have been achieved here, in this category.
I consider myself a player "Gama Media Level", I am the current champion of omatamix, I managed to reach 2700 elo with the old standard setup and ranking system prior to this.
Currently I became an administrator, to help solve the tremendous disaster that occurred in the big update that we received. I am actively participating in discussions of the public forums and also in the administrators meetings.
I am working in the field with people who really demand explanations and demand solutions, giving my valuable time, to listen to people and understand them and respond on time too.
I have generated surveys and votes of active people, to achieve greater illumination of the issues that require priority.
@Radon is also very actively helping us resolve this conflict, and his views are highly valid and he represents FFA and high-level players excellently.
I will not rest, until the current ranking system is changed, and I will continue working until I achieve the best optimization.
@Typewriter44 the game that it indicates, I had the opportunity to witness it and I immediately expressed my opinion to @ChessMasterGS:
This is the most boring game I have ever seen in FFA in its entire history!. 100 passing moves, all passive, nobody risks anything, and they don't seem to care.🥱 😴 . clearly in the chat they made it noticeable, at the end of the game.
Anyway, there are still people who continue to enjoy this perfect boredom, (Ranking System SOLO).🥱 😴
https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/26640247/0/1
@ChessMasterGS He would have had his reasons to do what he did at the beginning of the game, I do not judge him, I have always seen him excellent games in the past.
But really I'm collecting games, and there are not necessarily betrayals at the beginning, and that they are alliance style at the beginning, but in the 3 player stage, it becomes something really boring and without risk and extreme passivity, for so little achievement at the end.
There are many players who like the Omatamix setup, both mid-level and high-level players, but have not returned because of the current ranking system.
What communicates @liquid-sun and @LosChessquire It is really true, we have lost the essence of true FFA, and we will fight until we get it back.
We want the Real FFA and not SOLO undercover!
⚔️Martinaxo
Hello dear, nice to greet you and invite you to this new discussion forum, which in my point of view is the most important and relevant today.
Without a doubt, this determination has caused an impact throughout the world of Four Player Chess, The Fusion has brought bitter and sweet flavors to almost the entire community. There are currently very few games in progress and it shows too much.
I am going to start by saying that this survey or vote does NOT represent the final decision, just as the previous survey is clearly representative; for the simple reason that not everyone participates in these Forums.
However, I want to thank all the people who did participate in the previous survey, because it shows that there is a lot of interest in reviving this great game that we are all passionate about.
-----------------------------------
The general poll has begun for the entire 4pc circuit, in google form, so you can vote for your preferred option and get the statistics in real time.
Go to vote:
https://forms.gle/uwjPJeduok4MD1VA8
This is what will be defined in the coming days, everyone is starting to vote, That's why your opinion is important.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important:
I want to ask you please, do not issue necessary criticisms of the approach, because they are just that, "Approach". Believe me, I have the same interest, that all this be shaved; So don't waste time, don't waste your time on comments that are out of place. I will be grateful for the comments that seek solutions and not problems, I want to motivate them, to encourage them to deliver a vision, proposal, idea in PRO Solution of the current situation, of which I will be taking notes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm very excited about this, because I'm working with people in the administration who are very knowledgeable and we share a lot of common opinions, we also have some discrepancies, but that's normal everywhere.
My colleagues' proposals are based on strong convictions and highly valid arguments. Engines also provide us with interesting and relevant data. However, we consider the opinions of the 4pc Circuit players much more important and necessary.
That is why I am fighting and going out on the ground precisely to understand the global scenario.
--------------------------------------------------------
An example of the current situation:
when I see this, it doesn't seem fair: I don't like to see that the 2nd or 3rd lose more points than the 4th, this is a recent game.
1.- To many people, it doesn't seem fair that second or third place lose more points than fourth place.
2.- Consider that high category players often do not find games in their category and have to go down to lower levels to be able to play, and more these days, that there is little audience.
3.- Consider the duration factor of a game: some games last on average 30-45 minutes, but in this format it sometimes exceeds 1 hour of play. That for many people, is something very boring.
4.- Among others factors...
Note: We also have people who don't want to go back to the old FFA Scoring format.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has this topic been discussed in other forums? Right, that's why I now need to gather one last statistical background in relation to this relevant topic.
Here for more than a month the perfect formula is being discussed to define. the parameters that we have made to make a decision are the following:
- TEAM PLAYERS or ALLIANCE (rating over 2300)
- PASSIVE OPPOSITE
- RISK Rating
- INFLATION
- CONFORMISM 2nd or 3rd
The participation rate has dropped quite a bit, therefore defining this is not an easy task for anyone.
I liked to have the alternative separately and choose where to play democratically speaking. but there are people who consider that SOLO and FFA are technically the same, there I disagree a little, because for me it was always played differently. But anyway, that decision to change, I didn't make it, and that was before I became an Admin. Although if I could agree, they were quite similar FFA and SOLO, but not 100% the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What could be the categories?
FFA Levels, from my Point of View.
Among the categories of FFA players it seems to me that I can segment them like this:
0 a 1500 "Apprentice"
1600 a 1900 "Principiante" = Noob
2000 a 2300 "Gama Baja" = Competent
2400 a 2700 "Gama Media" = Superior
2800 a 3100 "Gama Alta" = Advanced Top Player
3200 a + "Experto" = Gran Maestro = GM FFA
Note: this is only representative graphical view, created personally.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics:
People who have participated in the vote: 51, updated today 15:32 pm
I want to thank all these people who have voted, there is still time to vote, lets go!
I sincerely thank all the people who participated in the vote, for me this has more value than the great mass of people who do not express themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My 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.
Explanation:
- Fits the parameters we seek to improve in FFA:- TEAM PLAYERS or ALLIANCE (rating over 2300) - PASSIVE OPPOSITE - RISK Rating - INFLATION - CONFORMISM 2nd or 3rd.
- 30 to 45 minutes in a battle, of a lot of work and concentration and demand. This, they have no compensation, everyone loses from 2nd to 4th, and in a very irregular way, it is synonymous with something very boring and even more so when there are players who are too passive, with ultra-closed structures, games that could even guarantee you an hour.
The ranking system is directly related to the form or style of play that you must have. Everyone who knows me well knows that my passion is FFA, it's my favorite game. but what we have today, is not FFA.
I really hope that we have understanding, and not imposition, We must listen to each other and reach a concrete agreement that pleases, that attracts, and that makes all the top players and frequent players return.
I would like to know what you think, if you agree or not, I say it in general to all Players, developers, administrators. I need everyone to participate in this, and let's see together the global conformity of the circuit.
Everything I indicate in this writing, I do, with the greatest respect it deserves.
Team Players
Oh come on, what a repetitive problem in novice players, when its solution is only a lack of communication and educating the essence of FFA. There are several forums that talk about this:
https://www.chess.com/blog/MoreMao/chess-fundamentals-for-four
https://www.chess.com/blog/MoreMao/4pc-fundamentals-basic-concepts-pre-strategy
https://www.chess.com/blog/GustavKlimtPaints/free-for-all-in-4pc-ideas-in-the-early-four-player-phase
https://www.chess.com/blog/liquid-sun/the-art-of-betrayal-in-ffa-4-player-chess
No report Valid
Do NOT report
Players who take advantage of other players' attacks and threats or temporarily cooperate in a non-arranged way for mutual benefit. This is an inherent part of the game and is allowed. It is often simply the natural result of a player's position having weaknesses or being inadequately defended.
Explanation:
"It is allowed to make a momentary strategic alliance with your opposite during the game, this does not constitute a violation of the rules"
This is not a TEAM-Prearranged, this is an Alliance Strategic Moment. This happens mostly at higher levels, this situation occurs naturally, either by strategy, geometry, psychology, etc.
These are accepted by the 4pc community, according to the evolution of your level of play.
More information in: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/rules-reporting#report-worthy
"Strategic alliances, betrayals, diplomacy, have existed all our lives, both in the real world and in the gamer world. The advantage is that now with Omatamix and even more BSRTI that is more exciting, dynamic in openings, it is much more even, balanced and fair for all colors. By incorporating the modification to the ranking system, you have managed to create the perfect game"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🧐 Where are the players❓
1.- The first and great reason is the change of server, people are scared of change. unstable server? solvable in the medium term.
2.- Ranking System in FFA: I would say that this is the main reason and in fact I would put it first. fixable in the short term.
3.- initial position of the king: Here we have the priority of establishing a fair and balanced scenario, mainly designed for FFA, and the old standard in FFA, is absolutely unbalanced. and you can't tell me that everyone wants to go back to an old standard, because that would be lying, the statistics say it.
I appreciate that people like you, want to give BSRTI a chance, I think it deserves that opportunity to be explored.
We have lived in great hierarchy and experience of Omatamix, when the first championship was held, for me it was very exciting to know this variant; I became the Current Champion of this Omatamix Modality and I am proud of that achievement, since I competed with very strong rivals, but my perseverance was higher.
I had always been a faithful defender of Omatamix, but by giving me space to get to know this BSRTI alternative and understand it in depth, it made me discover new things, extremely important.
a survey has just been carried out in the community in a transparent and democratic way, you can't ignore this statistic, for the simple desire to return to the old standard.
Forgive me if the message I sent you is very long, but in truth I am very excited that many players will return to the circuit and I am working to satisfy everyone's demands and reach a common agreement.
greets you sincerely,
Martinaxo