Lol, I checked out the new Blog post and was shocked when I didn't see the TrueSkill on the list, until I cam back and realized it takes time to code :p

The only concern I have with the reduction in match making is are there enough players to play? Is it 20% of your rank or rating? I imagine I won't really have much of a problem at 50 as I can go up and down, but MOD is ranked consistently top 10. Are there enough players for him to continue to play at 5 games at a time?

szeweningen.. :( Seems like in this thread, everything seems fine, but on the blogpost, Fizzer indeed announced 3min + bank, which is not what people voted for. Furthermore i second you, it can potentially reduce tha strategic value of the games a lot - especially mid/late game.. :(

3 mins + bank is best :)

So changing plans mid-turn isn't possible anymore? big dislike :(

Maybe it would work if you could bank time back up to 5 minutes? So if you start with 5 minutes banked and there was a maximum of 5 minutes. Presumably you won't need 3+ minutes every single turn.

This way you have an upper bound of 5 minutes plus 3 * number of turns for the length of the game and you'll still be able to take your time on critical turns.

over half of the people stated they need 5 minutes or even more, and they all were ignored. congratulations.

Fridge, most popular option is being implemented.

if the poll was slightly different and these were the results:

2 min - 2 votes
3 min - 1 vote
4 min - 1 vote
5 min - 1 vote
6 min - 1 vote
7 min - 1 vote
8 min - 1 vote
9 min - 1 vote

would you still make it 2 minutes because it was "the most popular"?????

are you really that blind/stupid?

This seems minor, but would help a lot with page navigation. Can we please make the default team our last team and not the first? Every time I go to the ladder page it shows me and Noobschool, who was my first teammate. It is not even the highest rating, which also makes some sense.

Think of it this way Fridge. If you have a candidate from two parties, and a third candidate running independently because he lost the primary to one of the other two candidates, they don't add those votes together because that person is closest to that option. Each option is evaluated separately and the highest votes wins.

Now, you could argue for a new poll to be done, divided into two options...but I don't think you can start adding results together because options are close to one another. Either live with the results or have a new poll separated differently.

Fridge, in a winner takes it all system; yes. Just look at US politics :p

Also, before you complain, wait before it is actually tried out. right now this is just specualation.

the ''winner takes it all'' System is definitely not what we voted for in that poll

chriscmu - your three-parties logic could have been implemented to picking a template. not the case i question at all.

on a sidenote - i agree about the visible teammate while being off-ladder.. either most recent or most succesful, or longest would be better.. or simply nothing.. or picking which one to show.. or even better a list of all of your previous teammates in a fancy table with "current rating highest rating, highest rank"

Well, if Fizzer is not happy with the results he got, he can re-do that question in a different way. I think many will not undestand banking boot mechanics though. Would be nice to see an example for those that do not...IF he did re-poll that one

Edited 9/15/2014 20:10:45

he will most likely not repoll anything.. why should he? only because one houshold appliance is whining? or rather - i guess he will not partly because of the way i was whining about it.. ;P

Great, now that the ladder is 0% luck I fail MORE ._.

the chance to fail a 3v2 are still the same. 16% = 0% WR for 3v2.
Only straight round make 3v2 100%.

Yeah, the %0 just eliminates the obscure attacks. Like a 1v1, 2v2, etc.

i voted for the 16% :(