Was this intended? If so, I'm just curious why. I personally am not a huge 1v1 guy, but would like to keep at least one game going. I've also noticed that some people still have it set to one (at least according to their ladder profiles), so I'm hoping maybe raising the minimum to two was not intended.

After the first time you get two games and click leave ladder. Before you finish the second game join the ladder again set to 2 games. When you get the next game click leave ladder again -- rinse and repeat. always repeat.

Was wondering the same. I tried to reduce mine back down to 1 for a few days and it wouldn't let me.

Hell, if I had known it was gonna be a one-way trip, I would have left mine at 1. I just assumed it wasn't displaying what I was already configured for as an option..

I actually asked Randy about this 2 weeks ago and he said he made the switch from 1-3 to 2-5 because he wanted the ladder to have more data faster to be accurate. Forcing each player to two games a piece really sped things up and got people past the provisional period. I would assume that after the ladder has settled quite a bit (I think it has) he'll be able to drop the minimum back down to 1.

The change was not retroactive so anyone that had their set to 1 and never changed it will still be at 1 game a piece.

I had had mine set to 3, but when i got burnt out on the ladder too quickly i changed it down, sadly I was forced to keeping 2 games up, which is leading me to delaying more in those games rather then keeping one game running quickly..

Just an FYI for Randy, but this is why I quit the ladder. Wanted to cut down on my overall games, and 2 ladder games at a time constantly put me over the edge. Might want to bring back the 1 game at a time feature.

I second the request for one game at a time to return.
NoZone

I've also decided to leave the ladder since I can't play only a single game. I'll probably join back up if we do get this option back.

The people have spoken!

Actually I think a good rule would be that you would have to contribute 20 games to the ladder to be able to have the option to drop down to 1 game at a time.

If the goal of the limit is to create more data and have more games going I think it is doing it's job but now people are getting stressed at the amount of games they have to play. I think after you have made it out of the provisional period and after 10 more games you can drop it down.

As a side option, it would be nice to have the Top 10's minimum at least 3 or 4 games a piece because you don't want the people at the top to only have 1 game going at a time.

I think 1 game would solve the problem purely by if you haven't played 20 games in 3 months then you'll be removed from the ranking anyways.

I support that with the R caveat thqat it's only an option after 20 games.

Ruthless-Duke,
would it be 20 games total, 20 games currently ranked, or how would it be determined?
and if 20 games ranked, would that mean it would be automated to put said player back to 2 games at a time when s/he is then brought back under 20 games ranked due to their relative inactivity?

think of it as a 20 game provisional.

What I meant was, you would have needed to complete 20 1v1 Ladder games in order to choose the option of going down to 1 game at a time. That way, Randy can still get the data he wants for the ladder and then people can slow it down once their rank settles.

Keep in mind that 20 is an arbitrary number and the more I think about it, 30 would be better.

What R said -- how about 25? That way you look like you're compromising.