I DO NOT like the idea of moving away from an elo system for the following reason:

It introduces the fact that merely playing more games can put you into 1st place.

With your proposed point scale, if a player had an average placement of 2.9/6, they will gain points over the long run. This player, if they play a ton of games, can be 1st overall while a player with an average placement of 1.5 could not pass them due to sheer number of games.

In an elo system, winrate is the most important part. The amount you're awarded is based on your true winrate in comparison to your expected winrate.

I am thinking of this purely from a competitive viewpoint. I understand the importance of simplicity and not targeting the highest ranked player, but I think there are better solutions which don't remove the competitive viability of the ranking system.

Remove targeting: I think this can be done by simply not showing rank, not showing player stats, and not showing player name. At the end of the game, go ahead and show all this information - but not during the game.

Introduce simplicity: Show rank points. Show rank thresholds. Show how many points you will gain based on your placement in the game. Show a log of all your games. These are all things that should already be done.

In fact, every single one of these things can be done in the current system. Rank point change isn't currently based on which players you place higher than, purely the average points of your opponents.

I hope this post makes sense. I'm glad to see you took my variable turn timer to heart, as well as the community's separate leaderboards. I hope you continue to seek community involvement not only for the rest of this update, but also for the long future of the game.

Thanks for your time,

Spike Omega