Yearly rating "reset" for FFA

Ratings are falling apart both as a concept and as symbolic numbers...

Real chess don't have the luxury of being entirely digital and FIDE keep pushing more and more worthless titles while the standard once are left in the dirt due to inflation.

What 4PC could do to have some kind of moral high ground and at least keep the numbers symbolic value, would be to lower everyone each year with either a set amount or so that the highest starting rating would be 3000.

This would put the top 20 into more of a relatable range. This would put some value into the symbolic 2400+ and 2500+ ques and games that are the most common format for open high-rated games. To have the numbers/ratings that people have in their mind as being high ratings could also help with lower the insults and bad manners.

As fake and hollow as the numbers are, it not really fair to blame people for thinking they might be quite good at the game if they qualify to play more or less the highest games that gets posted to the lobby. and 2400+ 2500+ has strong symbolic values from real chess as bars for the high titles there.

But those are already losing ground in real chess as for quite long already the use of "Super GM" are used to point out just how far behind the title is to the top players of the game.

So does 4PC suffer from players feeling the need to tell each other that even high ratings are low compared with what someone else got: "Oh you think your 2500 rating is good, well you nothing compared to my 2750" -> "Naa your 2750 rating suck, you need to reach my 3000 rating to be any good" -> "That is cute you would say that but actually only us at 3200-3400 know anything about this game" to try put a comedy twist to how the mentality of chats about what rating suppose to be a good one.

It might not help anything much at all, and people probably like their big numbers way more than they dislike inflation. But if it was implemented I think everything would be a few % better and it would probably lower the aim for ridiculous numbers.

I think that this is a good idea, it would be nice to actually think my rating is comparable to standard as a measurement of skill.

lol when I clicked on this, i though it was going to be some sort of "share the wealth" reset everyone's ratings to 1500 sort of scheme,

but since you are probably thinking an equal amount for everyone, this could actually work.

do you know what that phrase means?

Resets have been proposed many times in the past, and it's always been a good idea, but there's just too much (real or purported) backlash from those who don't want their ratings to go down, even if there is no meaningful difference. But I definitely think, at the very least, the starting rating should be changed to 1000 or even 800. That would at least curb future inflation, without adjusting current inflated ratings, and it would give new players a better idea of the skill curve compared to 2pc.

Good points but I do think it need to be from the top.

Actual resets are of course a removal of something people have put a lot of time and effort into. But to use another word than the title, to just dial it back so that the rating difference between everyone remains but starting at max 3000 or so, only remove specific rating goals.

As it is right now someone or some might aim to be the first to reach 3500 rating, and if things continue like that maybe someone will look forward to be the first to reach 4000 rating etc etc

To do it from the bottom and put them even lower, would in my mind make it even more confusing for people. Harder and longer climb and when they finally arrive at lets say 2500 they receive even more comments about how not-good they are than before.

So what are the limits for “from the top”? Do 1800s become 1500 while 1500s stay at their rating?

Sure, sounds good. 1400 starting ranking so probably good idea not have players get put below or back to that.

i would say you could also do a standard deduction, (ie, if the top player is 3500, the deduction would be -500 for all players).

then if players got pushed below 1400 that would be fine, you could even allow them to go negative if they were really low.

Based on data, anybody below 1100-1200 is very likely a sandbagger lol

maybe just limiting to 2450+ to be the highest rated queue possible to be created can be solution to your "high rated players getting away" type of thing

There already some only playing 4-friends games or even worse, 3 friends lobbies either on purpose or if don't have a 4th friend.

To put a limit on the rating for open game would only make that worse in general, and be used as an excuse for invitation-only games.

my dad don not want me play 4 player FFA in chess.com