That's why +3 0 0 -3 is terrible. Players don't only team and not care if they'd end up 2nd, but there's another problem...players playing for 3rd place, basically everyone plays just to not get 4th like 90% of the time. Why? Well, the huge difference between 3rd and 4th. This was the worst rating system I know, since I started playing 4 player chess in 2018. The other one I don't like is 2nd being +1 sth like +3 +1 -1 -3 This rating system can be used for lower rated players in which case I totally support and encourage it , but not for high level play and World Championship. World Championship has been rated Solo for a reason, you disliking Solo doesn't change the fact that the World Championship is presented with Solo format for years now and I think it should stay like this. My recommendation was:
Gold Arena <2500 +3 +1 -1 -3
Platinum Arena 2500-2800 +3 0 -1 -2
Diamond Arena 2800+ +3 -1 -1 -1
imo high level play is much more different than low level, actually, it varies so much that it's a completely different game. You don't need to analyze anything, just lookk at the World Championship games. We should separate into 2 or 3 parts, because the high level play can be considered as ranked / competitive play, that's why this separation is needed. My only negative remark on this change is that -1.33 should be changed to -1 and +4 to +3 because I think it's balanced, because I remember back in WTA days you could win 1 game, lose 2 (with -1) and still you gain rating because you won +3 and lost -2...I'm talking about max ranged queue, if you're low 2000, you play only 2000+ So my suggestion, in splitting rating system into 3 categories Classic WTM WTA is due to players learning about temporary cooperation, teaming with opposite and how 3 player stage works. They can learn slowly and adapt to these rating system changes way more easily than immediately switching to WTA.
I'm sure this has been brought up already in other posts. Let me just bring it up once more.
I think you will be hard pressed to find any higher rated / skilled player who thinks that the current solo rating system makes for a better game. The existence of a "last place" and a less-punished 2nd / 3rd makes for all kinds of tactical nuances that balances the game. This is because suicidal attacking play or team defection from one player can be punished as an alternative strategy to playing for first. The existence of a "last place" also adds the nuanced tactical "betrayal" decision to attack one's opposite when the opposite has defected, as well as the option to feign teaming, which is another tactic that some use to try and put their opposites in last place.
Maybe getting last place in the teaming meta of a last-place rating system is not as fun for those who don't know how to play well (which is a big reason why I suspect people don't want others to "team"), but the alternative is there being no punishment available for dull play. The current quality of FFA games is terrible due to this.
Furthermore, if you want to take the naturalistic argument, in evolutionary competition, temporary coalitions, defection, punishment of defection, and a "last place" are much more aligned with the "real" FFA environment of nature than winner-takes-all solo.
I think most higher rated or skilled players will agree with my thoughts here. The solo rating system currently used does not add to the game, but takes away from it, bottom line.