I've just analyzed how the rating would look like, if we just go linear from FFA at 1500 elo (and below) to solo at 3000 elo (and above).
Those are the checkmarks:
1500 elo +3 +1 -1 -3
1875 elo +3 +0,5 -1 -2,5
2250 elo +3 0 -1 -2
2625 elo +3 -0,5 -1 -1,5
3000 elo +3 -1 -1 -1
Of course the numbers can be scaled by a factor so that the sum of rating change stays the same.
I think we are really on the right track with the rating system shifting from FFA to Solo, but I think it has to be adjusted. I think setting pure solo on 2800 or even on 3000 like in this example would help a lot.
, sometimes the agony of the 1st loser is long enough to give him let's say 15-20 pts as he defends and eats; whereas his opp sometimes is passive and eventually has only 8-14 pts and finishes 4th).
I believe that:
a) there is NO ideal system.
b) players should be encouraged to play to WIN, i.e. to be 1st.
c) it's easy to get 4th sometimes despite of having played very correctly, just because you have an incompetent player as opp.
d) the difference between 3rd and 4th is not relevant, and shouldn't exist really.
e) it is NOT stupid to have different systems for different layers. Because contrary to 2p classical chess, here there is a group dynamic and a lot of psychology (like in poker) and the experience of the 4 players is critical. Therefore I personally do like the current system (but maybe it should be more Solo from a significantly higher level than now, probably from 2200/2300).
Another way to address that is to consider that Top 100 players are the world elite at any given moment, and therefore it could be for instance FFA when there are 0 or 1 player like this, and in case there are 2, 3 or 4 VIPs, it becomes automatically Solo. (Very different from the old WTA system from some level, where the average ELO was taken into account).
Otherwise, +4 -1 -1.5 -1.5 could be interesting maybe.
a) and e) The fact that there is no ideal system is correlating with the fact that the game changes as the elo get higher.
b) totally agree
c) and d) Sometimes you get 4th and couldn't do much. That is true. Still, I think there is a huge difference between 3rd and 4th. Because the 3-player-stage is an entirely different game than the 4-players-stage. Reaching this stage makes a big difference. I believe the difference between 3rd and 2nd is basically non-existing.
We all agree that the game is about winning. So the solo rating is the most straightforward:
1 winner, 3 losers
But to get to win a game is a process:
1. You manage not to get mated first and come to the 3-player-stage. (e.g. by mating another player)
2. You create a winning heads up (e.g. by a 20+ point lead)
3. You win the heads up (e.g. by claim win)
So every new step is an achievement and should be rewarded. Especially in low elo.
Therefore the rating system shifting from FFA +3 +1 -1 -3 to Solo +3 -1 -1 -1 just makes sense.
But I think that true solo where there is really no difference between 2nd and 4th does not start before world-championship-level. Therefore I think the pure solo rating should probably start with 2800 elo.
At 2500 elo it should probably still be around +3 0 -1 -2
TLDR: I agree with the rating system shifting from FFA to solo as the elo becomes higher, but pure solo should not start before 2800 elo.