Opposites may decide that they still have to kick the sandwiched player together. But:
1) He should get more points than now in similar case and may become 2nd.
2) If we implement "-40 for 2nd Assisted Checkmate" rule, the opposites, at least, will spend more time and exchange more pieces to kick him. Remember that he will earn double points for every capture.
Sounds like a good idea in theory, and may be good in practice too! Condition 2 (sandwiched player not in the 1st place) seems simple and reasonable.
I would be interested in testing it. The key issue I am finding is that it is nearly impossible to get test games played. Can we please add a button next to "Play" on the 4 player standard server that would take you to the test server for a test game instead? Thanks!
This may just be an extra incentive for the others to cooperate and quickly take out the sandwiched player.
What are you trying to achieve?
We have 2 contradictory opinions:
1. @TheSidewinder: "this could lead to more passive play and players waiting and allowing the opposite to get teamed by the side players"
2. @GDII: "This may just be an extra incentive for the others to cooperate and quickly take out the sandwiched player."
That is great. It means the rule should be tested.
Let's say Red is attacked by Blue and Green. If @TheSidewinder is right, Yellow will wait passively, because he want to become sandwiched and get double points. If @GDII is right, Yellow will help Red, because once Red is kicked, Yellow becomes an attractive (and annoying) target for Blue and Green and they will finish him quickly.
> Can we please add a button next to "Play" on the 4 player standard server that would take you to the test server for a test game instead?
Good idea to add move obvious way to get to the test server. But anyway you need 3 more players to join you.
> What are you trying to achieve?
Balance. See the link in the 1st message of this thread.
How a balanced game looks like?
How a balanced game looks like?
Ideally, like this:
It is balanced when players with similar skills have similar chances to win.
And now, have they?
When there are 3 players on 4PC board, a player between 2 other players has lower chanced to win. I wrote it above.
Do you have other experience?
Let's say that there are 3 players left, I'm in middle, and I get double points (your suggestion).
New meta = I make a team with my left side to attack my right side, so we both get 1st + 2nd rank (he will do checkmate, I will do material killing). I can even afford YOLO checks (sacrifices), so my left side can finish him off.
Old meta = side players are now risking a lot of (double) points with each trade with sandwiched player, and have higher chance to end up at 3rd position.
Previously, 1 of 3 players had lower chance to win, now 1 of 3 players has higher chance to win.
Absolutely balanced version:
While there are 4 players, it's a 4 player board.
When 1 is checkmated, remaining 3 players will start a 3 player chess.
When another 1 is checkmated, remaining 2 players can play a regular chess. Haha
@Eruner_SK, many questions arise. The main one:
> I make a team with my left side to attack my right side ...
How will the left player know that you make a team with him? If you will use chat, you will be chat-banned.
Because when you attack/check your opponent at your right side, all other players have time to exploit it. When you are between two players, then opponent on your right is right next to you. Player on your left does not have a player on his left (that would attack to right), so he has a space to develop his left wing and attack opposite (your enemy on right) from other side + from center.
Please note that even on hexagonal or triangular board if 2 players team up and attack the 3rd player together, they will win. Balance does not mean "any player can win any other 2 teamed up players".
And?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
Do you understand my question: "How will the left player know that you make a team with him?"
Let's use an example: You are Green between Red and Yellow. Red is at left from you. You earn double points (while you have less points than Red and Yellow, and while there are 3 players).
Why do you think Red will join you against Yellow? How will he understand, than you want to be in a team with him (remember that you cannot use chat)? Why is it more profitable to him to attack Yellow, not you?
At https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/thoughts-about-possible-anti-teaming-solutions-2018-11-05?page=4 I describe 3 stages of 4PC Solo (FFA) games. And mention that at "3 Players" stage there is imbalance, which we may want to fix.
A player between 2 opposites (for example, Red "sandwiched" between Blue and Green) has worse position due to the board geometry. And if opposites play like a team, that player has no chances to win (be 1st or 2nd).
Does the following rule sound reasonable? "Sandwiched player gets double points for piece captures."
This rule works only while there are 3 players on the board. Two opposites will highly likely attack that player together, so they may capture 2 his pieces while he can re-capture only 1 (and only if there is a chance and his king was not checked). Also there is high probability that before attacking the sandwiched player, those opposites kicked the 4th player together. "Double points" rule should make his chances higher.
What do you think?
P.S.
We can also make this rule conditional. Some of possible conditions:
1) If sandwiched player has less points than other 2 alive players. (He is 3rd or 4th.)
2) If sandwiched player is not on the 1st place now. (He is 2nd, 3rd or 4th.)
3) If the 4th player was not checkmated by sandwiched player. (That also means: was not kicked by opposites.)
P.P.S.
We tested a variation when opposites got double points for capturing pieces (and checkmating) their opposite. It sounds reasonable. The ides was to motivate opposites to attack one another. But if 2 opposites are teamers this rule does not force them to attack one another. They can still attack a sandwiched player together and don't break any rules.