Ranked 2v2 & FFA

True but it is the one that you cannot predict is the most interesting.

Yes, but a ranking system is not going to care about that.

Thats my point.

Nice one, I hope it sums up correctly
I skimmed through the paper and they did a bit more then simply put some FFA in there. It is a generalization of Glicko which even can handle team results. But I didn't see any thing that is computationally complex?

So the conclusion of this thread is:
It can be done.
It should be done.

Now we play the waiting game.

Fun should come first and rank as a tertiary factor.

It should be done but what's the priority?

Computationally complex is from people that implemented Glicko a multiplayer fashion through their statements regarding it and this statement from TrueSkill's FAQ:

"So, what is the difference to the Glicko system? Glicko was developed as an extension of ELO and was thus naturally limited to two player matches which end in either win or loss. Glicko cannot update skill levels of players if they compete in multi-player events or even in teams. The logistic model would make it computationally expensive to deal with team and multi-player games. Moreover, chess is usually played in pre-set tournaments and thus matching the right opponents was not considered a relevant problem in Glicko. In contrast, the TrueSkill ranking system offers a way to measure the quality of a match between any set of players."
- my emphasis

Edit: Microsoft research created TrueSkill from scratch using some of Glicko concepts. Also talking Glicko not TrueSkill for computationally complex regarding multiplayer.
Edit2: Corrected this sentence: I went with Microsoft res.... Should've said neither instead of either in the correct post.

Of course.

Thanks @lokiCML for the clarification.

Damn. Having heard some lectures of quantum physics years ago, I thought this was a pretty good play on words. You just need to make sure the sum is always 1!