Unrate FFA games

[Blodir]

Reasons should be obvious. I have no idea why they were ever rated

[JoonasTo]

Because they could.

And because people need a reliable way to lose points by not blatantly cheating them off xD

[Sheeo]

Reasons are not obvious, no. Do elaborate?

[keyser]

Because ffa combine playing skill and diplomatic skill.
doesn't matter if you are the best player in the world, you won't be automatically the best player of faf. Why ? because if you suck at getting ""ally"" then you will get 2v1(or more) right at the start of the game everytime. Maybe a ffa rating separate from the global one make more sense.
but since global rating try to reflect the skill of a player in playing, it shouldn't take ffa in account.

[Blodir]

FFA is not a competitive gamemode. A 3 player FFA will (nearly) always turn into 1v2. Say it's a game with 2000 player and 2x 1500 rating players. That will turn into 2v1 against 2k if everyone wants to win, and that 2k will lose a huge amount of points, even though he was the best player in that game. It screws up global rating for all other kinds of games that are balanced with global rating. It shouldn't be needed to go into intricate detail here. For example last round of FFA tourney I lost over 10 points on 3 player FFA between myself, zlo and petric on snoey triangle. Both of them just rushed my base after building factory with their coms from the start.

I guess you could argue that if everyone only played FFA their ratings would be fairly accurate. However there's a huge disparity in rating "spread" between FFA and teamgames. In FFA the best player will be gangbanged from the start so there is no chance to rise your rating past a certain point which results in everyone having their ratings quite close together. And it's not only that really, trueskill just isn't suited for this type of FFA. It works well for shooters where you respawn multiple times in a game and can't simply all gang up on one guy. And even then FFA rating should always be separate.

To be honest I feel silly even trying to explain this

[d-_-b]

i agree, and only play FFA as murderparty for these reasons.

[Sheeo]

We already weigh down FFA results to 25%, I think this is sufficient. Of course there's a display of skill during FFA matches, even though other factors also affect the game outcome than pure skill.

[Ithilis_Quo]

FFA for hight rating is all time 2x1, all time. Should 2v1 be ranked? When yes then that one should win 2x more as normal, and lose half as normal, but its obvious not posible to do because game dont know who is play together against who.

Lets look on previous FFA tourney. Blodir was 3th best player on tournay, and from that tourney -> where get perfect reasult lose about 100rating. Hilerious..

[Iszh]

Interesting all this here i only know something like this from wc3 and there exist several ratings. 1v1 2v2 3v3 ffa for each group one rating based on the same measure from 1-50. FFA was always 4 players and gave 4 times more rating than any other modus since to win there is times more difficult. Maybe with 4 players it was simply more balanced and not 2v1 all the time.

I told before it would be funny to have not only 1v1 matchmaker with random maps but random team rating 2v2 and 3v3 as well. Maybe even FFA with fixed player number of 4.

[Lieutenant Lich]

Reasons should be obvious. I have no idea why they were ever rated

1) Reasons are not obvious.
2) Unrating FFA games is futile as you will not practice diplomacy skills.
3) FFA games should remain of the same weight.
4) BUT! Admins should tweak the settings so that FFA can be only if there is an even number of players. Otherwise the games will turn, like you said, into an unfair 2v1.