I personally would play either way, but I think making the point losses proportional to the gains. I play no matter what, but removing ranking altogether could kill the midnight audience, which would make it harder for it to grow, as it’d have to go from 0 to 5 compared to 2-3 to 5. It’s just discouraging to go from #8 worldwide to not even HOF in four or five matches. I can see that deterring people from making pushes, which removes a few hours of a consistent player.
I think you can still gain or lose points, but put a cap on it. Maybe after a certain time just cap the amount you can win or lose in a single match. Maybe it's double the amount in game. 4 people in the game you can win or lose 8 points. 3 is 6 and so on.
I do like this more than losing 20!
I second this. I was in a board earlier today where I tied with 6-7 other people in 1st place and I lost points. Not sure how the points are awarded currently, but it needs to be looked into for situations like this.
Came here to say this. Winning a board is half the amount of points of losing that same board a minute later. Sometimes it's too risky to play at all. Very few points for winning and penalty for losing is extreme. It should be even or at least consistent. I came 2nd of 4 and was minus - how does that work? Sometimes you want to play but know you'll only be punished unless you win the board. Makes it unplayable.
Question, would you all be opposed to having boards with less than 2 or 3 players not impact ELO at all? Or would prefer it just dulled down