As I have understood so far our system is based on ELO. It's a rather complicated formula that basically gives you points or takes it according to your expectation to win (your ELO/ranking score compared to the enemys' scores).

My questions:

1. ELO was made for 1 vs 1 fights. What score are you compared to? An average of the 6 opponents' scores?

2. That, if we assume the score represents skill, might be unfair in case there are two with a slightly higher ranking and 4 a lot below?
-> ELO gives you 1 multiplied by sth that resembles the score comparison for a win. 1/2 * CompareValue (CV) for an equal. So in my example would you get 1/2 for being 3rd since 2 are better... How does it work?

3. Wkipedia mentions a problem: points will in average of all players go higher for certain people if they play a lot. Let's say we have the over all kdice champion who will beat everyone in the world (let's name him Ryan). He plays a few games and gets a 2000 ranking. Now two less talented players (let's say "alea" and "Jaits") play a hundred games against each other: Since alea sucks he has sth like 1500 afterwards, but Jaits gets 2200, which doesn't reflect his actual skill compared to Ryan.
-> So I see (real) Ryan's point that people should play about the same number of games. (example) alea will be pissed otherwise because with stopping to play at 2200, Jaits drains points from the whole system making it harder for alea (having absolved a kdice crash-course now) to get up in ranking.

4. What can we do for "(example) Jaits" or how are the table limits involved in the system?
Without limits we had everyone having pretty much the same score probably - as soon as you got ahead with points, a loose would be a big one (1400 vs 2100: just imagine). So the limits help to maintain scores - In a game of luck (!) important to prevent massive frustration.
-> If the limits would not depend on the number of players with certain rating, we had inflation. It's not to hard to stay at a certain level, once you crossed a "table limit safety mark". More and more people climb up and then: Complain, because there are no safety marks anymore (if there were, inflation): In a game of luck that means frustration, because they go down again, if they keep playing (down to the average of all above the last safety mark).
-> If they just don't play: see above.

5. Special problem: gaining 2200+ was for the lots only possible with the old system. With some luck you could get that high from 2000 (I'm impressed by the ones making it with the new system). So we took our score away from the whole system, let therefore sink the table limits to 1900 and perfectly protected ourselves at the top. I kinda like that, especially now that I understood (or believe I did). But it's unfair. If the high ranks start playing, give some of their points to the 1900s, there might be 2000 tables again at some point I believe. And the race for 1st is open again.

6. I do NOT understand, why that -50 points was helpfull except waking us up to the problem? There were even more points taken from the system? You could've said sth Ryan, instead of making drastic moves?

7. Anyways, I'm content with everything now and impressed by Ryan who has understood that whole thing even better than me and inventing all that.

* Almost all names used are invented and have nothing to do with any existing people.