Why the FFA rating system should change

Ok, thank you. Passivity. I was going to say I don't see any rating system that changes that. But I think I get your point now. The current rating system prevents you from taking risks? That is an interesting argument. I wonder if the passivity is a function, rather, of the oma setup. I will think on that. Thank you.

I still think we should either move solo up to higher ratings or go back to what we had before. I see no reason for a different rating system. Than those two

But I see the point more (I think?) So I'll think on that

I don't get how the rating system or solo for most, creates a desire for passive play. In FFA and Solo your chances are better if you can finish off someone in the 4 player stage with help from your opp.

Sometimes the issue with solo is not with the system itself, but with the players...

So, after thinking, for passivity in the 3 player stage, I don't think that's an issue. If everyone plays for first the same, then everything should be the same. If people play for first more, then I doubt that it would make people more passive in that stage. But that's not your argument I think so that's probably irrelevant.

So for the four player stage, we take the supposition that the more passive four player stage is bad. I don't think that is necessarily determined. This is much closer to how 2100-2400 games are I think. I worry that this is a bit of a judgement call. I.e if we were to ask 2300s I'm not sure they'd think it's a problem. I feel like this is very subjective and I don't feel like we have proof that it's worse. A change is worse for high players, yes, but is it worse for four player chess in the long run? Not necessarily. But this may be irrelevant as well.

So for passivity in the four stage, I'm not sure that is  because of solo. 1 if you take out a player, you have a 33 vs 25 percent chance of winning. 2 the position has changed 3 we are dealing with weaker players. So is this happening bc of solo not conclusive, if it's bad, which isn't proven 

My way forward is the same, mostly. Retreat back to what we had before, with perhaps 3 -1 -1 -2 for 2700+ 

Give solo to the 2100s then. But don't kill FFA. 

4 -1 -1 -3 ? Maybe too much for fourth 

it can't be +3 -4 nor +4 -5.  It must be the same number you add the same number you subtract +3 -3 or +4 -4 etc.  You can split the number you subtract/add into 2 or 3 parts, but has to be the same in the end or should I say 0...For example +5 -1.33 -1.33 -2.33 so you probably meant +5 -1 -1 -3

Anyways, just move solo out of not very strong cues and make it so that fourth looses a bit more and, if people's concerns come true, make it high enough so it won't matter too much. 2700+ solo

I straight up support the new rating system because it makes sure that the best player wins. Instead of 2 people getting points, I support the take it all approach, it creates stronger players for the newbies that do move up the rankings, which will be more challenging.

to be honest though, I don't care what rating system we use. I'll still play and enjoy it nonetheless.

Who says that the best player will win? Winning is also dependent on the play of other players, which is often out of the best player's control.

SFA is actually pretty void in hyperbullet; best players have a much higher chance of winning than in any other time control, and solo was always the mainstream for high rated. If only people would look at the chat to see that 2nd loses rating...

I'm pretty confident that given the logic in my OP and observations from games that it is not just my "opinion" that the new system encourages passivity, but the most objectively logical conclusion. For example, I posted a sharp variation in response to Typewriter's post above that shows how the game became more passive due to there being no 4th place (if we assume perfect play from each player). Observing this game also reveals many passive moves. As do many other such games with the new rating system.

Exactly, in four-player chess, the strongest in tactical terms does not always win, or the one with the most resources, usually the one who is most cunning wins.

Crafty / Cunning / Astute / Judicious
[person] That shows the ability to understand things and obtain advantage or benefit through deception or avoiding it.

This virtue is what often prevails in the game, and this characteristic is what differentiates the 4pc from the 2pc.

@martinaxo I actually gained around 45 pts, but I have had a few ups and downs.

There have been zero rated, elite level games. So you can't really judge the solo rating system fairly.

Guys, if you are bored with the 3 players stage endgame don't blame the rating system for that. That's right why SOLO rating system fix that problem because always someone in the end leads and the rule of 50 moves suits him so the other two must be active and not allow it. With the old FFA rules, players don't care to do something because they don't lose anything anyway if they are second or third!!!

If you want to fix problem "boring endings" change the rule "50 moves" to "20 moves", which I suggested a few years ago ( I have been thinking about the problem of "boring endings" long time ago and shortening this universal rule proved to be the best solution ... but, as always, there is no one to listen ... so... keep blaming the solo rating system for everything! )

@neoserbian change the rule "50 moves" to "20 moves"/ It may sound interesting, but we cannot forget that this rule was inherited from classical chess. Is a rule that belongs to the International Chess Federation.

Which states that a game can be drawn if each player has made the last 50 consecutive moves without any pawn movement or piece capture. I see it difficult for us to change that really, but I personally do not rule it out as an option.

@Darksquareman 

In your case, you may have had ups and downs, but you're doing great and you have the ability to play SOLO.

In my personal case, I also have a lot of ability to play in SOLO and I have also increased my level in the current ranking. But they are eternal games, you have to arm yourself with a lot of patience, since most play very positionally, they don't risk anything, many passing moves, and the minutes pass and pass. On the other hand, I want to find a queue in my category or at least 2500+ upwards and I find nothing available.

the game of @Typewriter44, is just one example of several models similar to that game, too many passive moves.

It's much more exciting an FFA essence ranking system that we had before this one. It was accepted by the vast majority. However, today we have a very extensive list of players who have not returned to the platform and that is very worrying.

I have a wide compilation, of which I have been storing them, and they really are very different games from what we were used to living or seeing in FFA. In the past, the games were filled with spectators and we commented on many games, and all that has been lost little by little.

This is a big problem, to achieve the conformity of all and not that of a few.
I have to think globally, and bring back all the frequent players who don't agree with this ranking system.

Let's get back the Real FFA we had.

Let's also remember that real life FFA does include a very common "playing for second" heritable trait. Maybe it goes against the true spirit of FFA, but it is something that people will do EVEN IF it means they are playing to lose in the current rating system. As I have stated, the old system allows players to punish that.

Change it tomorrow then. I don’t mean that sarcastically, we don’t have to stick with what we change it to but it is clear that what we have now isn’t working for high rated players. We can consider upgrades, if there are any, when we don’t have 2/3rds dormant. Or just, like I said, bring solo higher, but that is not time-sensitive.

But one caveat, how did it affect 2100-2400? Was that negative as well. Martinaxo?