WTA/Solo

Since the last post in this forum, the solo leaderboard has shrunk to 15 players, and the number #15 rating is 1333.

We all must do something! Solo is the esence of this game. This is only game where " free for all" have some meaning.

indeed, this gave me additional incentive to get in some solo rapid games.

"We all must do something" 

Anyone can start a solo game. I played 5 games yesterday, no rating restrictions, it wasn't that hard to get games started. Among the players that joined were some newbie 1200s, but also a number of strong players with no or very few Solo games (eg they can't play 1500+, yet..  same for me)

                                        1600+ ffa players

                                         1300-1400ish ffa players

When I tried a few weeks ago, I could hardly get a game started, so this came as somewhat of a surprise, I am more optimistic now regarding the future of Solo.

> only game where " free for all" have some meaning

i disagree here, i think free for all is the perfect name where you are free to do (aka make alliances) as you like, play for 2nd, play for 3rd, etc.  

Solo is the purest form in the sense that you can´t be lazy and attack the weak or virtually kill your winning chances for securing second. You are free to do and undo, but you have to take into account the best interests of the player you are relying on (rather than allying, no such thing, cos at the end of the day only one benefits). 

So i was out for a few months and i just noticed the update. Seems like people are only playing FFA now. I have played a few games and i definitely dislike it.

FFA=Teams 4PC

It's only a matter of time that people will understand this and start studying 4PC teams openings so they can beat one of the sides ASAP and then deal with the other side. When the other one, the third, is almost destroyed then maybe you can "betray" your opposite, but not before since you will earn some "traitor" reputation that will prevent others from implementing this strategy with you.

In WTA i feel you need to implement a similar strategy in 4player stage, being very agressive. Problem is there are not enough players so there are only a few that would understand this, and since you need to adapt to reality, conservative play pays off.

But at least the 3 players left stage in WTA is different. It's all about balance. So teaming pretty much stops there.

I agree with Jonas and his 2 solutions. I'm not sure having so much options (bullet, bala, rapid, ffa, solo, variants...) is the best choice right now due to the lack of players. Let the game grow first. There are some people streaming games on Youtube, so there's a chance it becomes more popular soon. But confusing them with the options might not be the best strategy right now. And i think WTA is the way to go, FFA is just a variant of teams. Some people will complain, but we need to think long term. 

I really liked the way it was before: WTA for high-rated players. People complaining are more likely to be less rated players that still dont understand the game, so let them enjoy FFA to make the transition.

solo just isn't popular. bullet and variants are much more popular than wta. 

Just out of curiosity... would it be possible to allow a larger kvalue for players who haven't gotten a lot of games in? I'm just wondering because my 4pc is rated at like 1300 and I feel really bad playing against other people who are only 1400 and i keep winning...

1.  I think we should do a formal poll amongst people who are in the higher range to see what the experts prefer.  If we just go by what people complain about, thats biased because when something works, the satisfied don't report to forum to thank the admins...

2.  We also have to keep integrity of chess in mind.  The way it is right now, at highest level, chess is often luck based.  It is also inconsistent with its world championship format where it indeed is WTA.  We also have team chess, there is no reason for 4 player chess to be so similar to team chess...

Why do we have enough players for FFA, AntiChess and King Of The Hill, but don't have enough for Solo/WTA?

We cannot change people, cannot change their attitude. But we can change Solo to meet their expectations. (However it may become "not Solo" after the update.)

I mean... variants are new and fun spins on 4pc let alone normal chess... so its like getting cake and eating it too... or getting to have a smoke and a drink (idrk about analogies)... but its kind of like bughouse in a way. You can have teams, play chess but its crazyhouse, and instead u use ur partner instead of depending on urself.... Maybe they are looking for something new rather than something old... and even though FFA is old, maybe the environment is less cutthroat. The times i've played FFA I've had luck w/ people not trying to take me out and while we may 'team' for a few moves, we go against each other.

Well, it's like a business, you need to decide your strategy. As i see it, SOLO is the way to go, bc FFA is more similar to TEAMS. And it's much easier right now to "sell" one product (variant) than 20.  I think you are diversifying your offer without having enough demand or a strong "brand".

You need to think long term and not be a slave of what people seem to want now.  People didnt want Coca-Cola before it was invented. You can change people, you can change their attitude. But you need a good product. 

Please look at this screenshot:

You can see that there are 53 live games. Only 4 of them are Variants. Less than 10% of games are Variants, look at the Watch tab at any moment and you'll see that. So, we cannot say that Variants distract players from Standard 4PC FFA/Solo/Teams. Yes, there are many variants, but they do not undermine the main 4PC popularity.

Imagine that we will remove the Variants. It will make the Standard 4PC games 5% to 10% more popular, in theory. But we'll lose those players who play only Variants. Why lose (and upset) them to get a few % in Standard?!

1. First of all, you are not including Bala FFA, Bullet FFA, Rapid FFA on the equation or the difference between Checkmates 20 points or Checkmates 40 points, both factors that affect the strategy of the game. If you want to be realistic with those % look at the 1/15 FFA 20points checkmate per total.

2. Don't forget the other thing i said: you need a good product. I've seen that a lot of high rated players have complained about not having enough people in SOLO. And some other that were usually in the Leaderboard are not playing anymore.

People that have a higher rank usually understand the game better than the rest, so if those people are the ones complaining about FFA they're probably giving a better feedback about the future of the game that people that still dont understand why one variant can or not be more entertaining/interesting. 

Anyway that's just my opinion, of course, i'm not saying that you should remove everything except Standard 1/15 SOLO, but maybe having one option by default can be one solution to help this grow long term. Or maybe not, would need to think a bit about the best solution. But i think you should make decisions having what i've said in mind.

Maybe change it to +6 -1 -2 -3?

I suggested that but the issue is people can win trade to up rating (if you could team with someone to guarantee getting 1st and 2nd no matter what) all you'd have to do is get 1st +6 and get 2nd the second game for an average of +5

I would encourage 1500+ players to play 2+5 (or similar) Solo. Or 4+5, that counts as Rapid! Solo Blitz is already much more popular than the 1+15D games that often take 1-2 hours! A blitz time control with increment allows for longer thinks when needed, but keeps the game flowing, and you can 'earn' thinking time by playing quick moves.

The question I ask is: Why are all the players that complain about FFA being too much like teams not voluntarily switching to Solo? Maybe they are too lazy to click a few buttons, so adding 4+5 Solo as a standard option for 1400+ players seems like a good idea.

For say <1450 games there really isn't much difference between Solo and FFA, other than Solo being extremely unpopular, and understandably so.

@jbolea including bullet in that list changes nothing, it will add only 0-1 games and remember those games don't last long. Besides, what makes you think removing the options to play bullet or variants will help Solo? 

Yeah, i like those time controls more.

I wrote bala instead of blitz (mixing spanish and english), but you are wrong, read my comment. Bullet, Blitz and Rapid, there are 6 different Leaderboards in FFA and SOLO, look at it, so 3 different time controls. And also the points per checkmate option, that also change the game strategy. So no, it's not only 0-1 games, and obviously it doesnt matter if they last long or not in this aspect. Apart from that, time control is the factor that less affects the strategy.

And again, read my comment before replying please ("i'm not saying that you should remove everything"). As i said, one solution can be making a default game (maybe ffa for low rated and SOLO for high rated). You can keep the option to personalize a game, but try to focus in one variant/option. 

*Seven, counting Antichess

looking at the solo leaderboard, i notice most players just play solo to stay on it. 2 games in two weeks, but not more. i even watched a game where a good player basically ruined the solo game and said in chat 'i only needed to get a game in to get back on the leaderboard'. they only play solo when they 'have to'. that makes me think the 'problem' is that people just don't like it, apparently not even the top players. 

Look at my post #23, I played 5 1|15D Solo games in a row, no problem. 

you (both jbolea and skhandelwal) played many ffa games this week, but not a single solo game. why?