First off, even though I sucked horribly, I love the new ladder system.

One update I would like to see is to be able to have more than 3 games at a time (five would be cool). and also, the help page says that only one game will be created per person per 6 hour update...it should just update enough games to fill the amount possible you clicked.

But anyway, I created this page as positive criticism and suggestion about the ladder system. Feel free to post any updates or changes you would like to see. I love ladder and can't wait for the 2v2!

@Fizzer Great job, keep up the good work!

hmm, i hadn't realized it would only start one game at a time *per 6 hours* that could get annoying imho, but i can understand it to try to keep people from blitzing their rankings up conceivably..

I lost my first two games, and am waiting anxiously for the rankings to cycle over to see how it's affected me, lol

The one-game-per-6-hours restriction was just a technical one. I agree it should create more - I'll look into this for the 1.1 release.

We should talk about what an appropriate maximum is. I agree three might be too low, but setting to too high gives advantages to the players that are super active. I think it would be nice to give the semi-active players as much fair chance at the top ladder spot without requiring them to play a ton of games at a time.

Thanks for the feedback!

I agree fizzer, thats why I think that 5 would be good, because there still isn't much of an advantage for playing more games, other than that you should rise or drop to where you should be based on skill faster.

with five however, having it update five fames every 6 hours for active player might be TOO much.

IMHO, the best would be to have a max 5 games and a max 3 new every 6 hour cycle with a max of 7/8 every 24 hours

I agree that more than three would be great.

Fizzer/Perrin, I'm not sure I understand why you guys think that playing more games would be an advantage, rating wise? Once the ratings stabilize, there should really be no difference in rating between two players of the same strength, regardless of whether they play one game at a time, or 10 at a time. The only difference I can see is that the person who plays more will have a more accurate rating (because it is based on more data). The person who plays less would actually be more likely to be overrated (or underrated) simply due to the lack of data.